Stolen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
Even IF they were drugged, which there’s nothing in Scripture to suggest that, the fact that Jesus appeared to so many; healthy and not battered shows He had been Resurrected, and not stolen or suffered a 'swoon", right?
Click to expand...
Yes exactly.
 
Jon_S said:
Yes exactly.
Click to expand...
It’s certain, He was dead on the cross, right? Going back to the swoon theory, some skeptics say He didn’t really die, so if it’s certain He died, even IF someone stole the body, He couldn’t have appeared to so many witnesses without being Resurrected, right?
 
Faith1960 said:
It’s certain, He was dead on the cross, right? Going back to the swoon theory, some skeptics say He didn’t really die, so if it’s certain He died, even IF someone stole the body, He couldn’t have appeared to so many witnesses without being Resurrected, right?
Click to expand...
He was absolutely dead. The fact that a spear pierced his heart and water came out undoubtedly shows him as dead. Not to mention the immense torture throughout.

If you’ve ever been around someone gravely and traumatically injured you would know the swoon theory is bogus by modern standards let alone 2000 years ago.

This old article is interesting.
articles.latimes.com/1986-03-28/news/vw-883_1_medical-examiner
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m looking forward to NBCs A.D. on Easter Sunday. I saw the previews and a thought occurred to me. Could have the guards at Jesus’ tomb have been drugged and Jesus’s body stolen?
Click to expand...
Well, let’s look at the question of drugging.

I presume we’re talking about some drug that would “knock out” the Roman guards, and could somehow be administered without them knowing.

To modern ears, this might sound like general anesthesia (the drugs we use to operate on people). But, of course, there were no such drugs prior to the early Nineteenth Century. There were no such drugs available, for example, in the American Civil War (mid-1860s), which is why people’s infected arms and legs were sawed off without general anesthesia. There was no such drug. And, even today, there is no such drug that can be administered orally. No pill will knock you out enough that I could saw off your arm without you waking up.

Prior to general anesthesia, we had sedatives. These drugs date back to antiquity. They can induce a light sleep if administered in sufficient quantity. The most effective, BY FAR (and the one that would have been most readily available in Our Lord’s time) was poppy (opium). There were other less-effective and more dangerous sedatives, such as mandrake root (which is actually mentioned in the Bible). But poppies were cheap and plentiful (and locally grown). And they worked pretty well as sedatives. Enough poppy would induce a light sleep.

Alcohol is another ancient sedative drug. It is inferior to poppy, but will also induce a light sleep if given in a (comparatively greater) quantity.

Neither poppy nor alcohol were refined until fairly modern times. Liquor did not exist in the ancient world - everything was comparable to beer or wine. Heroin did not exist - there was only raw poppy. The first “refined poppy” was laudanum, developed in the Seventeenth Century.

The problem with either sedative is that they are both impossible to administer clandestinely in sufficient quantity (or concentration) to induce sleep. Poppy (and laudanum) is EXTREMELY bitter - nobody would willingly ingest it without WANTING to ingest it (to get high). That’s why poppy (opium) was usually burned and inhaled. It was really nasty to eat or drink. Today we have syringes to administer poppy (heroin). Nobody eats or drinks it.

Beer and wine have a distinctive flavor which would have been well known and readily identified.

So, how does somebody in the First Century drug a Roman guard detail without them knowing they were being drugged? It would be impossible. It would be unlikely enough that a guard detail would accept food or drink from a stranger, but it would be absolutely impossible to include enough “drugs” to incapacitate the detail - such drugs simply did not exist.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Well, let’s look at the question of drugging.

…

So, how does somebody in the First Century drug a Roman guard detail without them knowing they were being drugged? It would be impossible. It would be unlikely enough that a guard detail would accept food or drink from a stranger, but it would be absolutely impossible to include enough “drugs” to incapacitate the detail - such drugs simply did not exist.
Click to expand...
Yes! Remember that the Romans had rigid rules about their soldiers’ performance while on duty. Falling asleep at their post meant a punishment of DEATH – they would be unlikely to open themselves up to being drugged.

The fact that they all deserted their post to run to the chief priests means that something terrified them to the point of risking death. When a unit deserted their post together, one out of every ten men would be chosen by lot to be killed by the other nine.

The Romans were not wishy-washy with their expectations or their punishments.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Well, let’s look at the question of drugging.

I presume we’re talking about some drug that would “knock out” the Roman guards, and could somehow be administered without them knowing.

To modern ears, this might sound like general anesthesia (the drugs we use to operate on people). But, of course, there were no such drugs prior to the early Nineteenth Century. There were no such drugs available, for example, in the American Civil War (mid-1860s), which is why people’s infected arms and legs were sawed off without general anesthesia. There was no such drug. And, even today, there is no such drug that can be administered orally. No pill will knock you out enough that I could saw off your arm without you waking up.

Prior to general anesthesia, we had sedatives. These drugs date back to antiquity. They can induce a light sleep if administered in sufficient quantity. The most effective, BY FAR (and the one that would have been most readily available in Our Lord’s time) was poppy (opium). There were other less-effective and more dangerous sedatives, such as mandrake root (which is actually mentioned in the Bible). But poppies were cheap and plentiful (and locally grown). And they worked pretty well as sedatives. Enough poppy would induce a light sleep.

Alcohol is another ancient sedative drug. It is inferior to poppy, but will also induce a light sleep if given in a (comparatively greater) quantity.

Neither poppy nor alcohol were refined until fairly modern times. Liquor did not exist in the ancient world - everything was comparable to beer or wine. Heroin did not exist - there was only raw poppy. The first “refined poppy” was laudanum, developed in the Seventeenth Century.

The problem with either sedative is that they are both impossible to administer clandestinely in sufficient quantity (or concentration) to induce sleep. Poppy (and laudanum) is EXTREMELY bitter - nobody would willingly ingest cystit without WANTING to ingest it (to get high). That’s why poppy (opium) was usually burned and inhaled. It was really nasty to eat or drink. Today we have syringes to administer poppy (heroin). Nobody eats or drinks it.

Beer and wine have a distinctive flavor which would have been well known and readily identified.

So, how does somebody in the First Century drug a Roman guard detail without them knowing they were being drugged? It would be impossible. It would be unlikely enough that a guard detail would accept food or drink from a stranger, but it would be absolutely impossible to include enough “drugs” to incapacitate the detail - such drugs simply did not exist.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Next question: if he guards were doing their job, why is there no testimony about them seeing Jesus emerge from the tomb?
 
Faith1960 said:
Thanks!

Next question: if he guards were doing their job, why is there no testimony about them seeing Jesus emerge from the tomb?
Click to expand...
The first century wasn’t like today where ABC news shows up with cameras for interviews.

The guards likely were fearful for their lives being taken by their superiors let alone losing their jobs.

If they were even literate to begin with.
 
Jon_S said:
The first century wasn’t like today where ABC news shows up with cameras for interviews.

The guards likely were fearful for their lives being taken by their superiors let alone losing their jobs.

If they were even literate to begin with.
Click to expand...
Why would they lose their lives if Jesus supernaturally emerged from the tomb?

Also, the guards were vocal about seeing the angel and aftermath of Jesus’ resrurrection,. Why does it sound as if they saw the angel, which could also put their lives in danger, considering Jesus was gone, and yet apparently not seen Jesus emerge from the tomb?
 
Faith1960 said:
Why would they lose their lives if Jesus supernaturally emerged from the tomb?

Also, the guards were vocal about seeing the angel and aftermath of Jesus’ resrurrection,. Why does it sound as if they saw the angel, which could also put their lives in danger, considering Jesus was gone, and yet apparently not seen Jesus emerge from the tomb?
Click to expand...
Ok, so your a first century roman soldier. You flee your post and go to your superior and say you saw an Angel abd a dead man come to life. Said dead man just was crucified and seen as an instigator of the people. Now his people are calling him Lord when only Ceasar is Lord in their minds.

Such a story would be seen as them failing and supporting treason.

So the gladiator pit would be there destiny.

People need to really understand how different the world was both in its appearance/technology, but also in philosophy, government, religion, and paradigm.
 
Jon_S said:
Ok, so your a first century roman soldier. You flee your post and go to your superior and say you saw an Angel abd a dead man come to life. Said dead man just was crucified and seen as an instigator of the people. Now his people are calling him Lord when only Ceasar is Lord in their minds.

Such a story would be seen as them failing and supporting treason.

So the gladiator pit would be there destiny.

People need to really understand how different the world was both in its appearance/technology, but also in philosophy, government, religion, and paradigm.
Click to expand...
Was a gladiator pit a pit for dead bodies?
 
Faith1960 said:
Was a gladiator pit a pit for dead bodies?
Click to expand...
It was where criminals went to “fight” wild beasts and armed and armored soldiers. Basically it was where they were killed as a spectator sport.

Here’s a “tame” but still graphic representation from the movie gladiator.

youtu.be/HDb-9bXoIQU

It is what the coliseum was built for.
 
If you are going to introduce drugs into the equation, well, there are all sorts of speculations you can make.

Good ol’ Hugh Schoenfeld threw out the hypothesis decades ago that Jesus himself was drugged up on the cross when he was given viniger and water. Heavily sedated, the guards were convinced that Jesus was dead, as was Pilate, and so gave the body over to Joseph of Arimathia for burial.

To steal Jesus away from the tomb, no reason for Joseph not to give the drug to the guards as well.

Lazarus? He was the “dry run” test subject for Jesus and the drug was given to him to see if it could simulate death convincingly, and then allow for a recovery.

Slippery slope…
 
Jon_S said:
It was where criminals went to “fight” wild beasts and armed and armored soldiers. Basically it was where they were killed as a spectator sport.

Here’s a “tame” but still graphic representation from the movie gladiator.

youtu.be/HDb-9bXoIQU

It is what the coliseum was built for.
Click to expand...
Gross. It looks like they were given shields, at least.
 
Gertabelle said:
Matthew 28:1-6
Click to expand...
But, I believe the book of Mark doesn’t mention the guards at all, and Mark was probably the first gospel written. What the significance might be, I don’t know, but it’s interesting.
 
Matthew 28:11 says the guards ran to tell the chief priests “everything that happened.” I read something that suggested that this includes the guards seeing Jesus’ resurrection. Something to consider.
 
captainrick said:
But, I believe the book of Mark doesn’t mention the guards at all, and Mark was probably the first gospel written. What the significance might be, I don’t know, but it’s interesting.
Click to expand...
The earliest Mark doesn’t even mention the resurrection.

Correct me if I am wrong, Patrick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top