[Okashira]

Interestingly enough, it comes from Matthew's Gospel. In the passage of Matthew ch. 28 verses 11-15, which states....

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 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.

So this is where the jewish leaders pay off the roman guards to keep quiet about what really happened at the tomb of Jesus. What I want to point out is verse 15, where it states that this saying (the disciples taking Jesus body) was widely known, and could be confirm in the day that Matthew's Gospel was written. In other words, we could officially confirm there was a declaration by the priests that Jesus body was no longer in the tomb.

Now, we know trained guards would not fall asleep on the job. To do so would mean death. So that excuse is reasonably bogus. Also, look at what many scholars today are saying about the disciples concerning the historical Jesus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._abandon_Jesus

With this in mind, how can the disciples take Jesus body, if they are no where to be found for fear of death? Again remember, Matthew is saying the report of them taking the body was widely known, so we could have confirmed back then the priests acknowledged Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb. According to the wikipedia article (it is wikipedia, so it's not official), Jesus most likely didn't even tell His disciples He would rise again. If that were the case, certainly the disciples would not have moved Jesus' body.

All in all, if the chief priests confirm that Jesus was no longer in the tomb, and the story of the guards sleeping clearly being bogus, the only other option is in fact, Jesus had risen.

[A Perfect Circle]

Uses Bible as evidence for stories found in...the Bible.

William Lane Craig salutes you.

[Rybee]

Harry Potter's a wizard.

'cuz the books said so.

[xxm]

Sums up my views on your post.

[Okashira]

I don't think you guys understand. It doesn't matter where it was written, but the statement could be proven outside the Bible.

[maxcartwright]

(Original post by Okashira)
I don't think you guys understand. It doesn't matter where it was written, but the statement could be proven outside the Bible.

HOW..

[Okashira]

(Original post by maxcartwright)
HOW..

The letter Matthew wrote explicitly states this as common knowledge.

[maxcartwright]

(Original post by Okashira)
The letter Matthew wrote explicitly states this as common knowledge.

But that's IN THE BIBLE. I thought you were trying to provide evidence of the resurrection from outside the bible?

[Blackburn_Allen]

Even if Jesus did do the impossible and come back from the dead, it proves nothing of Jesus' apparent superhuman powers. According to Biblical tales, resurrection back then was as common as a miracle. Unbelievable, right? Well, let's look at who did "come back from the dead": Enoch, Moses (God buried Moses himself but we'll say he planned for this resurrection), Elijah, Lazarus and Eutychus from the top of my head, although there were others. This makes Jesus no more supernatural (or Holy?) than any of these people, afterall, they performed the same act as him, right?

Wrong. Apparently, only Jesus' resurrection was a "true resurrection". Which says he resurrected into his eternal body, where his mere earthly body was transformed into a glorious spiritual body, capable of living in God's direct presence. So whilst Enoch and Moses may have indeed come back from the dead, they should that it was a non-true resurrection and, really, counts for nothing because their mere earthly bodies aren't really capable to be in God's presence at all, despite their best efforts.

[Okashira]

(Original post by maxcartwright)
But that's IN THE BIBLE. I thought you were trying to provide evidence of the resurrection from outside the bible?

Let's think about this for a sec. If I was trying to persuade of something, and I refer to something happening last week to enforce my points, wouldn't the thing I'm referring to have to be true? Not only that, but you would have to know what I'm talking about in my reference of that thing last week, before you can understand whatever point I'm making. This is what Matthew is doing. His referring to something known, in order to bring out the complete truth.

The chief priests proclamation of the disciples taking Jesus' body was a known fact in the time Matthew's gospel was written.

[Serano]

Facepalm another circular argument

[mc1000]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...christ&f=false

If you're an atheist, then perhaps you should read the book in that link; in the same way that if you're religious you should read the God Delusion.

I myself am neutral in this argument. But if you idolise Dawkins and Hawking - if you have read the God Delusion from cover to cover, and you automatically dismiss any argument for Christ as bull****, without actually having an open mind and also considering the contrasting literature written by people who are intellectual scholars just as much as Dawkins and Hawking - then that makes you a hypocrite.

For the OP - read contrasting literature and formulate a proper argument, FFS.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Okashira)
Now, we know trained guards would not fall asleep on the job. To do so would mean death. So that excuse is reasonably bogus

No it wouldn't, you literally had to wipe your arse with a torah and start a riot in order to earn the death penalty as a Roman soldier in Judaea, the Roman's weren't in the business of mass executions of their own soldiers for a number of reasons.

They generally weren't Romans, or even Italian, they were fighting for a foreign nation that had often conscripted them or this was their only means of securing citizenship from their new masters. Regularly executing people would mean far less recruits.

Secondly they were on a mission for the Jews, and honestly the Romans couldn't care less about the upper echelons of Jewish society. They were widely resented for pandering to Roman sensibilities and either around this time or shortly after were in any case subject to the regular assassinations of the sicarii. Even less pressure for Romans to care enough to act.

Thirdly them falling asleep isn't exactly necessary for them to lose the body. Ignoring the fact that the author of Matthew would have to purely speculate on the bribery (it's hardly like they'd go round telling everyone they were bribed) based on the assumption that Jesus was raised and they're not telling the truth, them being overcome is also a possibility. In any case, sleep (or drunkenness for that matter) is still a viable option.

(Original post by Okashira)
Also, look at what many scholars today are saying about the disciples concerning the historical Jesus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._abandon_Jesus

With this in mind, how can the disciples take Jesus body, if they are no where to be found for fear of death?

So noone knowing where any of them are makes them LESS able to commit a covert theft of the body? Particularly when we know a few days later they were still in Jerusalem?

In any case, it's fairly easy to speculate on the incentives of these people in acting. Many of them were fisherman who had either abandoned or gone with their families into more or less poverty with Jesus. Being uneducated, and not having the start up capital to start again, having engaged personally with noone in the last 3 years without the intention of bringing them round to Jesus.

Your pretty screwed at that point with no way out no matter what you do. The whole "the disciples were too scared" argument doesn't really hold much water either.

(Original post by Okashira)
Again remember, Matthew is saying the report of them taking the body was widely known, so we could have confirmed back then the priests acknowledged Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb. According to the wikipedia article (it is wikipedia, so it's not official), Jesus most likely didn't even tell His disciples He would rise again. If that were the case, certainly the disciples would not have moved Jesus' body.

The case for them not being told that he would rise again seems contingent on the historical narrative that they were scared and hiding being true, but it's also contingent on the gospel narrators accounts of the numerous times he tells them he's going to rise again being false. Either way you have deliberate manipulation of the facts by the gospel authors to suit their own purposes, I'm simply more inclined to say that given the much more complicated situation going on after the death of Jesus, the higher stakes involved and the wide-spread knowledge of his public preaching they're more likely to manipulate that than what he was preaching before in any significant degree.

[Mathematix]

Holy **** I lolled.

[Gofre]

(Original post by mc1000)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...christ&f=false

If you're an atheist, then perhaps you should read the book in that link; in the same way that if you're religious you should read the God Delusion.

I myself am neutral in this argument. But if you idolise Dawkins and Hawking - if you have read the God Delusion from cover to cover, and you automatically dismiss any argument for Christ as bull****, without actually having an open mind and also considering the contrasting literature written by people who are intellectual scholars just as much as Dawkins and Hawking - then that makes you a hypocrite.

For the OP - read contrasting literature and formulate a proper argument, FFS.

Strobel is a terrible example to use in presenting good christian literature, he's said some utterly bizarre things and some stuff which has been proven to be outright false. He's not an expert in any field and from the excerpts I've seen from that book it's full of leading questions and misplaced conclusions.

[mc1000]

(Original post by Gofre)
Strobel is a terrible example to use in presenting good christian literature, he's said some utterly bizarre things and some stuff which has been proven to be outright false. He's not an expert in any field and from the excerpts I've seen from that book it's full of leading questions and misplaced conclusions.

The book is an account of Strobel's discussions with proper academics; its core message is effectively conveyed by said academics (of whom there are a fair few), as opposed to Strobel himself, per se.

In any case, what has he said that is utterly bizarre / proven to be false?

[Gofre]

(Original post by mc1000)
The book is an account of Strobel's discussions with proper academics; its core message is effectively conveyed by said academics (of whom there are a fair few), as opposed to Strobel himself, per se.

First and foremost, the academics he interviews (Also not that only one academic is interviewed per chapter) are also evangelical christians who while qualified, are there to confirm positions not held by the rest of the people in their field, the historicity of the New Testament for example. His first interview arrives at a contrary conclusion, and he then bases every subsequent chapter around this presupposition. Leading questions include "could jesus have survived the crucifixion" and "Could the tomb have been emptied by itself?" rather than asking for evidence that these events actually took place. The interviewee will say no to both these questions and Strobel gets to arrive at the conclusion that it must have been divine intervention. There are numerous interviews on christian websites criticising ACFC for simply preaching to the choir rather than presenting an argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

In any case, what has he said that is utterly bizarre / proven to be false?

This is a good example of both. He's coming up with numbers and scales so arbitrary it's ridiculous, and there is no scientific basis to his claims whatsoever.


Here he uses a combination of Hovindisms and outright lies. He also gets the number of phyla that have been identified wrong.


Doubt has also been thrown on his claims that he used to be an atheist, but that's not really important.

[Martyn*]

Now for the Resurrection of Osiris:

http://www.touregypt.net/afterlife3.htm

[Carter78]

(Original post by Okashira)
Let's think about this for a sec. If I was trying to persuade of something, and I refer to something happening last week to enforce my points, wouldn't the thing I'm referring to have to be true? Not only that, but you would have to know what I'm talking about in my reference of that thing last week, before you can understand whatever point I'm making. This is what Matthew is doing. His referring to something known, in order to bring out the complete truth.

The chief priests proclamation of the disciples taking Jesus' body was a known fact in the time Matthew's gospel was written.

If I write a letter to a friend reporting that some security guards at Tesco told me that they had flown to Mars last week. How could my letter be held up as legitimate proof of such an endeavour?

[mmmpie]

I'm not sure you've even grasped the concept of evidence, never mind it's quality.

Nothing in the Bible constitutes evidence for what is said in the Bible.