N
nerddad
Guest
i think that if it had happened, the apostles surely would have mentioned it as it would only further confirm the Lords death prior to ressurection.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
The resurrection is well attested to in scriptural and non-scriptural writings. If one looks at the behavior of the attestants subsequent to their testimony, it is clear that something supernatural occurred.
May the L-rd G-d of Israel bless you.
S
steveandersen
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Those writings held to be non-canonical would fall into this category. There are also secular accounts of Jesus’ life, both by Jewish and Roman authorities. Pliny the Younger, for example, wrote of Christ, but I do not know if he mentioned the resurrection.
Christ’s peace.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
thats easy, there is NO historical source that proves their claim.
In the gospels the Jewish leaders paid off the guards to say the body was stolen. I Cor 15 tells of of hundreds of witnesses to his resurrection. If what they say was true, then in Acts 2 while the apostles were preaching all they would have to do is dig up the body and display it.
There are historical sources that talk about Jesus death and alledge resurrection. If the Jews had the body, then Josephus would have said so, even giving the exact location of its burial.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
the claim comes from books like the Passover Plot. I don’t even remember if the talmud even tried to make such a claim.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Best answer yet.Even IF they did do that, how would that prevent Him from rising 3 days later?
also, who would want to defile themselves by handling a dead body?
Why would they want to defile the sabbath itself with the dead body on display, even for a few mintues. Why not display the body outside the camp for the whole time?
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
This whole sw-loon theory ignores the spear in his heart from the side.
It would make more sense to cover the opening of the grave site, where the rock was with firewood and burn up all the oxygen in the cave.
R
rpp
Guest
WARNING!!
Alert!I do not think they understood what oxygen was back then. At the time people did not realize considered air to one of only 4 elements (fire, earth and water the others). It was believed that that flamable material carried within them unrealized essence of fire. In 1667 Johann Becher codified this belief and described something he called “dephlogisticated air”, “phlogiston” being the element within flammable object that permitted them to burn. The whole concept of phlogiston was refuted by Robert Boyle in a famous experiment in 1753 where he was able to successfully separate oxygen. Anyway, the priests would not have thought to use fire to use up all the oxygen.
But more seriously…
Yes, those who claim that Christ faked his death ("swoon theory) most certainly and conveniently ignore the fact that He was stabbed (“pierced”) with a spear. And none to gently, I suspect.
D
DebChris
Guest
During the time of the Romans, Caesar was held to be a God. The History Channel has had several documentaries regarding the name(s) claimed by Caesar. This would have led to belief in the divinity of Jesus as blasphemous not only to the Pharisees, but to Romans as well. It is one of the reasons the Christians were martyred (see Tacitus).
The Romans posted a guard to protect against the claim that Jesus would rise from the dead. In other words, the Romans were to protect the tomb from somebody coming and stealing the body. It is this theft of the body that was the lie circulated, not an unholy act of digging up the body to be reburied.
The Romans posted a guard to protect against the claim that Jesus would rise from the dead. In other words, the Romans were to protect the tomb from somebody coming and stealing the body. It is this theft of the body that was the lie circulated, not an unholy act of digging up the body to be reburied.
R
rpp
Guest
Ugh! I just re-read this andWARNING!!
I do not think they understood what oxygen was back then. At the time people did not realize considered air to one of only 4 elements (fire, earth and water the others). It was believed that that flamable material carried within them unrealized essence of fire. In 1667 Johann Becher codified this belief and described something he called “dephlogisticated air”, “phlogiston” being the element within flammable object that permitted them to burn. The whole concept of phlogiston was refuted by Robert Boyle in a famous experiment in 1753 where he was able to successfully separate oxygen. Anyway, the priests would not have thought to use fire to use up all the oxygen.
. Well, that’s what you get when write something, then edit it with cut and paste. Here let me correct this!Whew! Much better.
W
wahlmaster
Guest
A Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the side to make certain he was dead. The Roman executioners did not allow living bodies to be taken down until death, hence why they broke the legs of the two thieves as well.
Plus a crucifixion was meant to be a public method of execution, hanging a person afterward would make no sense!
Plus a crucifixion was meant to be a public method of execution, hanging a person afterward would make no sense!
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
As with most other posters, I don’t believe this happened. As far as refuting, I think there are a couple things to note. First of all, there wasn’t any digging… it was a tomb. Secondly, we find in the Gospel that there were Roman guards parked outside the “door” of the tomb. Does anyone think that they were just going to let someon cart the Body off to be hung for 10 minutes? (I do realize that it was the chief priests and the Pharisees that requested the guard, but they were Roman guards). Lastly, they put Jesus in the tomb on the day before the Sabbath. I’ve always heard that they were in a hurry to put Him into the tomb because they didn’t want to be ‘unclean’ for the Sabbath. It does not stand to reason that whoever these people were (Sanhedrin? Pharisees?) that they would have ‘defiled’ themselves right before or on the Sabbath. It does not make sense.
Perhaps someone is taking the words “hung in a tree” literally (Acts 5:30)?
Perhaps someone is taking the words “hung in a tree” literally (Acts 5:30)?
A
Alexius
Guest
Good point about the dead. I do not think a Jewish counsel would dig up the dead. That would be against Jewish Law. The Romans would not do it because they could care less. Even if we suggest the notion of the Jewish Sanhedrin going to dig him up, the amount of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time had more attention. Having rejected Christ, they would certainly not entertain the idea to go double-check. They saw Him die, the Romans confirmed His death, and the Sanhedrin didn’t consider a resurrection.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
V
Valke2
Guest
because even in death, the body is a creation of God and it was considered disrespectful to leave a body out overnight.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
As were Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Pluto, Vulcan, Mercury, the list goes on… The Romans also believed that Romulus, who founded Rome, became a god after death. Blasphemy? No. The only thing the Romans were worried about was rebellion. and it should be “god” with a small “g”.
After Julius Caesar died, he was acknowledged as becoming divine. The idea of imperial divinity wasn’t really pushed down everyone’s throats until a bit later.
And usually Romans would leave bodies on the crosses to rot, as a warning to others. It’s what happened to Spartacus…
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Not to the Romans
po18guy
Well-known member
Show me the money! Where is any shred of evidence in support of this claim? The lie and cover up began the first Easter, when the soldiers were bribed. If that is recorded by those outside of power, under scrutiny, and suffering persecution, where are the well-documented and well-preserved writings to the contrary made by those in power and authority who could walk openly in the daylight…
Christ’s peace.
Christ’s peace.
J
joegrabowski
Guest
I haven’t researched the issue fully, but I just want to point out what might be an apologetic weakness in some of the arguments made above. IF the assertion is made in the Talmud or Midrash, then the argument with a Jewish person that “it seems unlikely whether a Jewish counsel would do such and such” will be dismissed as spurious. Keep in mind, the Jews have their own ideas about the development of their faith and ways of explaining their doctrinal advances.
Anyhow, the argument of historical authority seems to be the least question begging, and the simple fact is that the first references made to Christ or Christians in Talmudic literature don’t come until well after the Christian phenomenon had already taken hold and is well documented. All other things being equal, it seems highly unlikely that such an obvious piece of evidence such as the one this story claims would have been easily overlooked by the converts to the new religion - many of whom were intensely observant Jews.
Anyhow, the argument of historical authority seems to be the least question begging, and the simple fact is that the first references made to Christ or Christians in Talmudic literature don’t come until well after the Christian phenomenon had already taken hold and is well documented. All other things being equal, it seems highly unlikely that such an obvious piece of evidence such as the one this story claims would have been easily overlooked by the converts to the new religion - many of whom were intensely observant Jews.
V
Valke2
Guest
I thought the question was why didn’t the Sanhedrin display the body all night rather than a few minutes.
- Status