Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure the point you are trying to make but Pilate did give the priests a guard for the tomb. The soldiers did guard that tomb and they did freak out while guarding the tomb when they say something very supernatural occur in front of their own eyes. In fear of Pilate, they ran to the priests and explained what had happened and the priests gave them money to keep them quite and most likely gave Pilate enough money as to spare the guards their lives and livelihood. Generally speaking if the account wasn't true than leaving out this detail would have been the best move. But since the account of Jesus' resurrection is coming from sane and clear thinking, honest people, they added this account confident that their story has more power over the lie. I would have done the same thing.
The conclusion that the guard at Joseph's tomb was a contengent of Roman soldiers is nothing more than Christian mythology at work. This can clearly be seen in Matthew 28:
[12] And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
[13] Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
[14] And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
[15] So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Sleeping on guard duty was a capital offence in the Roman army.
Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote: "A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it, whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept." (The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military System, sec. 37).
Matthew states that the soldiers openly boasted of being asleep on guard duty. Pilate gave the order to guard the tomb. A contingent of the Jewish priests own men at the tomb who were derelict in their duty was a problem for the Jews to handle. The Roman army dominated the ancient world because of its strict disipline. If the the guard at the tomb had been a contingent of Roman soldiers, Roman soldiers would have had no reason to suppose that a group of Jewish Priests could protect them from their commanders for open dereliction of duty.
The scenario you are attempting to create is of a group of Roman soldiers, the Nazi SS of their day, turning to a group of rabbi's to protect them from Hitler, or in this case Pilate, which the Rabbi's promise to do by offering to pay the Roman guards to openly brag of committing the capital crime of sleeping while on guard duty. Do you not see any problem with this convoluted conclusion at all? The penalty for being convicted of sleeping on guard duty in the Roman army was to be beaten to death. Why Roman soldiers would even reach the conclusion that a group of Rabbi's could possibly protect them in the first place is a good question. That they would agree to openly brag of being derelict in their duty based on assurances given them by a group of Rabbi's is questionable to the point of absurity. Jewish guards on the other hand would naturally turn to their own leaders for help. Pilate gave the order that the tomb should be guarded, but the Jewish priests could reasonably expect to mollify him on that point if the dereliction was committed by their own men and not his. Notice again that Matthew specifically indicates that THE PRIESTS set the guard. Jews do not give orders to Roman soldiers. But the final stake in the heart of this particular scheme of yours is this one. Had the guard been Roman, the Jewish priests would have had no reason to offer their protection. The obvious conclusion by the priests would have been that the guard had colluded with the followers of Jesus for money. If the guard were Roman, the priests should have been outraged and DEMANDED their punishment. The situation for the priests became a good deal stickier however if the guard were made up of their own men. And clearly that is what the story is portraying, a contengent of Jewish guards, NOT Roman guards.
Even William Lane Craig acknowledges that the guard at the tomb would necessarily have had to have been Jewish.
Wikipedia
The guard at the tomb
"William Lane Craig considers the historicity of the guards plausible, although he suspects it was more likely Jewish temple guards, especially considering the chief priests' promises to keep them "out of trouble" would mean little to Roman soldiers who might be executed for claiming to have slept on duty.[17] The best objection to Matthew's version, to Craig, is that Matthew's account "presupposes not only that Jesus predicted his resurrection in three days, but also that the Jews understood this clearly while the disciples remained in ignorance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen...rd_at_the_tomb
Whether the account in Matthew is true or not is another matter altogether. Because if the account is true, there is no good explanation for why the other three Gospels entirely failed to mention it. Especially if the guards were Roman.
The conclusion that the guard at Joseph's tomb was a contengent of Roman soldiers is nothing more than Christian mythology at work. This can clearly be seen in Matthew 28:
[12] And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
[13] Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
[14] And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
[15] So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Sleeping on guard duty was a capital offence in the Roman army.
Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote: "A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it, whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept." (The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military System, sec. 37).
Matthew states that the soldiers openly boasted of being asleep on guard duty. Pilate gave the order to guard the tomb. A contingent of the Jewish priests own men at the tomb who were derelict in their duty was a problem for the Jews to handle. The Roman army dominated the ancient world because of its strict disipline. If the the guard at the tomb had been a contingent of Roman soldiers, Roman soldiers would have had no reason to suppose that a group of Jewish Priests could protect them from their commanders for open dereliction of duty.
The scenario you are attempting to create is of a group of Roman soldiers, the Nazi SS of their day, turning to a group of rabbi's to protect them from Hitler, or in this case Pilate, which the Rabbi's promise to do by offering to pay the Roman guards to openly brag of committing the capital crime of sleeping while on guard duty. Do you not see any problem with this convoluted conclusion at all? The penalty for being convicted of sleeping on guard duty in the Roman army was to be beaten to death. Why Roman soldiers would even reach the conclusion that a group of Rabbi's could possibly protect them in the first place is a good question. That they would agree to openly brag of being derelict in their duty based on assurances given them by a group of Rabbi's is questionable to the point of absurity. Jewish guards on the other hand would naturally turn to their own leaders for help. Pilate gave the order that the tomb should be guarded, but the Jewish priests could reasonably expect to mollify him on that point if the dereliction was committed by their own men and not his. Notice again that Matthew specifically indicates that THE PRIESTS set the guard. Jews do not give orders to Roman soldiers. But the final stake in the heart of this particular scheme of yours is this one. Had the guard been Roman, the Jewish priests would have had no reason to offer their protection. The obvious conclusion by the priests would have been that the guard had colluded with the followers of Jesus for money. If the guard were Roman, the priests should have been outraged and DEMANDED their punishment. The situation for the priests became a good deal stickier however if the guard were made up of their own men. And clearly that is what the story is portraying, a contengent of Jewish guards, NOT Roman guards.
Even William Lane Craig acknowledges that the guard at the tomb would necessarily have had to have been Jewish.
Wikipedia
The guard at the tomb
"William Lane Craig considers the historicity of the guards plausible, although he suspects it was more likely Jewish temple guards, especially considering the chief priests' promises to keep them "out of trouble" would mean little to Roman soldiers who might be executed for claiming to have slept on duty.[17] The best objection to Matthew's version, to Craig, is that Matthew's account "presupposes not only that Jesus predicted his resurrection in three days, but also that the Jews understood this clearly while the disciples remained in ignorance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen...rd_at_the_tomb
Whether the account in Matthew is true or not is another matter altogether. Because if the account is true, there is no good explanation for why the other three Gospels entirely failed to mention it. Especially if the guards were Roman.
Bolded above^^^ WL Craig should have been fired from Talbot just like Mike Licona for daring to question even a single detail of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Licona was fired for questioning the Matthew story of the zombie saints rising from their graves.
Here's a more likely scenario for the guards bribed by the Pharisees story:
200 CE a scribe is sitting alone with an earlier generation of the original Matthew gospel. He's been ordered to make 20 new copies for circulation. The resurrection account is too of details like Mark's so he decides to spice it up a bit. I mean he's alone, there's no one watching him. What's the harm? He invents the story of the guards being bribed not having any clue of the reality of the situation as Polybius has described it. The 20 copies get circulated, another scribe adds a few more details and makes 20 more copies and voila--we get the nonsensical account we have today.
That these texts were continuously altered and refined to give the story more punch is the worst-kept secret in the Christian faith today.
Bolded above^^^ WL Craig should have been fired from Talbot just like Mike Licona for daring to question even a single detail of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Licona was fired for questioning the Matthew story of the zombie saints rising from their graves.
Here's a more likely scenario for the guards bribed by the Pharisees story:
200 CE a scribe is sitting alone with an earlier generation of the original Matthew gospel. He's been ordered to make 20 new copies for circulation. The resurrection account is too of details like Mark's so he decides to spice it up a bit. I mean he's alone, there's no one watching him. What's the harm? He invents the story of the guards being bribed not having any clue of the reality of the situation as Polybius has described it. The 20 copies get circulated, another scribe adds a few more details and makes 20 more copies and voila--we get the nonsensical account we have today.
That these texts were continuously altered and refined to give the story more punch is the worst-kept secret in the Christian faith today.
Gospel Matthew makes several claims for which there is no other historical support. One is the guard at the tomb. And of course the "Night of the Living Dead" tale (Matthew 27:52-53). Another story without any historical support is The Massacre of the Innocents tale (Matthew 2:16).
Wikipedia
Massacre of the Innocents
Since the sole evidence for the event occurs in the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament scholars treat its historicity as an open question, and most recent biographers of Herod deny that the event occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
The Gospel According to Matthew is not a credible source of historical events. No one even knows who wrote it. The author was less interested in accurate historical fact than he was of making the case that Jesus represented the realization of prophecy.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 07-16-2018 at 11:09 AM..
Gospel Matthew makes several claims for which there is no other historical support. One is the guard at the tomb. And of course the "Night of the Living Dead" tale (Matthew 27:52-53). Another story without any historical support is The Massacre of the Innocents tale (Matthew 2:16).
Wikipedia
Massacre of the Innocents
Since the sole evidence for the event occurs in the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament scholars treat its historicity as an open question, and most recent biographers of Herod deny that the event occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
The Gospel According to Matthew is not a credible source of historical events. No one even knows who wrote it. The author was less interested in accurate historical fact than he was of making the case that Jesus represented the realization of prophecy.
like the movie "pearl harbor". it was for entertainment, not history. Bible is being misused, imo.
how about The natural, that was a good one, taken literally as "baseball" would be silly, but it was a great movie.
Titanic was a fictional story, but Cameron went to great lengths to be accurate in depicting the events. The debate about whether the ship broke in two at the surface, or on its way to the bottom continues however. Apollo 13 was reasonably accurate I believe. Truth really is more entertaining than fiction at times.
"The natural, like "Field of Dreams," was a feel good film for those who of us who love baseball.
The Gospel According to Matthew is not a credible source of historical events. No one even knows who wrote it. The author was less interested in accurate historical fact than he was of making the case that Jesus represented the realization of prophecy.
The gospels authors were interested in politics not history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too soon to rep.
