"Get over it" he says!~

"Get over it" he says!~

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 13th, 2010, 9:04 pm #1

In the post below. This is how Pope deals with issues he either can't handle or refuses to look at! What a way to handle discussion or debate! He glossed over much of what I wrote, jumped to his own conclusion about what I said and doggedly stuck to his own pet model in his mind.

Discussion or debate AT LEAST requires that the parties PAY ATTENTION to what the opponent is saying.

Did I indicate in ANY way that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were NOT compiled by the same person? No I did not. I know for a fact that I did not because .... I thoroughly AGREE that they were compiled by the same individual!

What I SAID is that this individual's NAME was not really "Luke". The later church merely ASSIGNED that name to the GLuke BECAUSE .....

Luke happened to be the name of a guy whom Paul referred to in his own epistle of Colossians, as "the beloved physician." (2 Timothy 4:11 refers to "Luke" as well but 2 Timothy is considered by modern scholars today, to be a later "pseudograph" which was written much later by a scribe PRETENDING to be Paul). So we have ONE SINGLE reference to the physician Luke, made by Paul in his own writings, that seems quite sure, in Colossians 4:14 and that's IT! That is the ONLY positive reference to this character in the entire NTestament!

And BECAUSE the writer of Acts suddenly includes the word "we" .... way into the 16th chapter of his narrative ... Theologians have taken this monstrous leap of logic to conclude that the writer (make that compiler) of Acts was involved in his own narrative and that HE must be Luke the Physician! Wow.

Then Pope brings up the "Theophilus" issue again ... HIMSELF! He states:

[ How quick you are to overlook the fact that...
Both of those texts...
Are directed to...
-- "Theophilus". ]

Precisely. This is a detail I've frequently pointed to myself. The compiler of GLuke and of Acts are the same person ... because of this common addressing of his work to "Theophilus". I've also pointed out frequently that the very FIRST person of any note, by that name .... was Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the middle of the second century. I've pointed out that the 4 Gospels were ONLY starting to be mentioned by church fathers in the middle of the second century. I've pointed out that Irenaeus -a bishop of Lyons, France, circa 170 AD- showed complete lack of knowledge or respect for the Gospels when he argued that Jesus COULDN'T have died at such an early age as the Gospels say ...but HAD to have lived on into the second century under Emperor Trajan.

All clues point to the same conclusion: the Gospels didn't come into play until the middle of the second century. Even Bart Ehrman agrees on that point. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the compiler of GLuke and Acts was creating his work FOR Bishop Theophilus in the middle of the second century and he was doing it so that Theophilus and the Antioch church could have some kind of ground-work understanding of the origins of their faith. It makes sense too, that the book of Acts was created for the Bishop of Antioch since every indication in the Acts accounts has Paul being BASED in Antioch as his headquarters. (Kind of a "home town boy" to Antioch he was ... which would be a great motive for sending this researcher-scribe to get all the information on Paul that he could.)

Pope-> [ Heck...
Even Ehrman agrees that both texts were written by the same author... ]

Absolutely. No disagreement there.

Pope-> [ "Virtually ALL Scholars" are convinced that both books were written by the same author...
But, YOU, however, would be the exception...? ]

Nope. You just haven't been paying close attention.

.....

My assertion of duplication in the Acts text .... was completely IGNORED by Pope.

Here they are again ....

[ Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.]

This is what they did and the matter was settled.

Then we come to chapter 21 and the issue is all up in the air again! ....

[ 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. ]

The very SAME issue which was addressed and resolved in chapter 15 is AGAIN duplicated in chapter 21! That indicates the compiler of Acts was adding a second version of essentially the same story. A different legend ... maybe from a different community ... but speaking of (maybe) the same incident?

We see 3 different versions of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. There is the story ABOUT the conversion in chapter 9 .... Paul TELLING his own story in chapter 22 to a crowd ... and then his version of the story to King Agrippa in chapter 26. None of the 3 versions agree in detail.

If Mr. Luke HAD been a buddy of Paul's, you'd think he'd get the facts straight and WOULDN'T have had Paul contradicting himself in the two versions where Paul ostensibly told the story himself.

What did Paul say to the crowd, about his conversion in ch. 22?

[ 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.]

What does he say to King Agrippa in ch. 26?

[ 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. ]

The versions and instruction sets are completely different. In chapter 22, Paul is told to go to Damascus to get further instructions; in chapter 26, he receives instructions on the spot. In chapter 22 he is blind; in chapter 26 he is apparently not.

It's totally unreal for a person not to SPECIFICALLY remember all of the precise details of such a monumental and shocking event. Author "Luke" would NOT have queried his "buddy" Paul a bit more thoroughly to get the story straight?

No. Author "Luke" never knew Paul. This is just another example clue ... of duplication, compiled from different sources ... by a compiler who has NO intimate knowledge of the described events himself.

Finally, there is the point about Peter accusing Jews of having killed Jesus and then hanging his body on a tree.

Pope doesn't address that item either ... aside from making a smart remark about it.

And then he has the Chutzpah to suggest to me that I "get over it" ?!?^^

I ask you, my dear reader friend ....

Who is the sensible one in this exchange?

-Vince





Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 4th, 2006, 5:18 pm

February 13th, 2010, 11:29 pm #2

Just kidding

I hope your life is well.






"Making friends - the highest calling"<i></i>

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 13th, 2010, 11:40 pm #3

wife is hell.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 4th, 2006, 5:18 pm

February 13th, 2010, 11:50 pm #4

Buy her one of the new ergonomic ironing boards - guaranteed to be a hit (pun intended).





"Making friends - the highest calling"<i></i>

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 14th, 2010, 12:29 am #5

It's not on my list of things to do. No such observations by moi. We have a strictly platonic arrangement.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 4th, 2006, 5:18 pm

February 14th, 2010, 12:47 am #6

I meant 'hit' - like with a frying pan





"Making friends - the highest calling"<i></i>

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

February 14th, 2010, 12:49 am #7

In the post below. This is how Pope deals with issues he either can't handle or refuses to look at! What a way to handle discussion or debate! He glossed over much of what I wrote, jumped to his own conclusion about what I said and doggedly stuck to his own pet model in his mind.

Discussion or debate AT LEAST requires that the parties PAY ATTENTION to what the opponent is saying.

Did I indicate in ANY way that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were NOT compiled by the same person? No I did not. I know for a fact that I did not because .... I thoroughly AGREE that they were compiled by the same individual!

What I SAID is that this individual's NAME was not really "Luke". The later church merely ASSIGNED that name to the GLuke BECAUSE .....

Luke happened to be the name of a guy whom Paul referred to in his own epistle of Colossians, as "the beloved physician." (2 Timothy 4:11 refers to "Luke" as well but 2 Timothy is considered by modern scholars today, to be a later "pseudograph" which was written much later by a scribe PRETENDING to be Paul). So we have ONE SINGLE reference to the physician Luke, made by Paul in his own writings, that seems quite sure, in Colossians 4:14 and that's IT! That is the ONLY positive reference to this character in the entire NTestament!

And BECAUSE the writer of Acts suddenly includes the word "we" .... way into the 16th chapter of his narrative ... Theologians have taken this monstrous leap of logic to conclude that the writer (make that compiler) of Acts was involved in his own narrative and that HE must be Luke the Physician! Wow.

Then Pope brings up the "Theophilus" issue again ... HIMSELF! He states:

[ How quick you are to overlook the fact that...
Both of those texts...
Are directed to...
-- "Theophilus". ]

Precisely. This is a detail I've frequently pointed to myself. The compiler of GLuke and of Acts are the same person ... because of this common addressing of his work to "Theophilus". I've also pointed out frequently that the very FIRST person of any note, by that name .... was Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the middle of the second century. I've pointed out that the 4 Gospels were ONLY starting to be mentioned by church fathers in the middle of the second century. I've pointed out that Irenaeus -a bishop of Lyons, France, circa 170 AD- showed complete lack of knowledge or respect for the Gospels when he argued that Jesus COULDN'T have died at such an early age as the Gospels say ...but HAD to have lived on into the second century under Emperor Trajan.

All clues point to the same conclusion: the Gospels didn't come into play until the middle of the second century. Even Bart Ehrman agrees on that point. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the compiler of GLuke and Acts was creating his work FOR Bishop Theophilus in the middle of the second century and he was doing it so that Theophilus and the Antioch church could have some kind of ground-work understanding of the origins of their faith. It makes sense too, that the book of Acts was created for the Bishop of Antioch since every indication in the Acts accounts has Paul being BASED in Antioch as his headquarters. (Kind of a "home town boy" to Antioch he was ... which would be a great motive for sending this researcher-scribe to get all the information on Paul that he could.)

Pope-> [ Heck...
Even Ehrman agrees that both texts were written by the same author... ]

Absolutely. No disagreement there.

Pope-> [ "Virtually ALL Scholars" are convinced that both books were written by the same author...
But, YOU, however, would be the exception...? ]

Nope. You just haven't been paying close attention.

.....

My assertion of duplication in the Acts text .... was completely IGNORED by Pope.

Here they are again ....

[ Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.]

This is what they did and the matter was settled.

Then we come to chapter 21 and the issue is all up in the air again! ....

[ 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. ]

The very SAME issue which was addressed and resolved in chapter 15 is AGAIN duplicated in chapter 21! That indicates the compiler of Acts was adding a second version of essentially the same story. A different legend ... maybe from a different community ... but speaking of (maybe) the same incident?

We see 3 different versions of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. There is the story ABOUT the conversion in chapter 9 .... Paul TELLING his own story in chapter 22 to a crowd ... and then his version of the story to King Agrippa in chapter 26. None of the 3 versions agree in detail.

If Mr. Luke HAD been a buddy of Paul's, you'd think he'd get the facts straight and WOULDN'T have had Paul contradicting himself in the two versions where Paul ostensibly told the story himself.

What did Paul say to the crowd, about his conversion in ch. 22?

[ 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.]

What does he say to King Agrippa in ch. 26?

[ 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. ]

The versions and instruction sets are completely different. In chapter 22, Paul is told to go to Damascus to get further instructions; in chapter 26, he receives instructions on the spot. In chapter 22 he is blind; in chapter 26 he is apparently not.

It's totally unreal for a person not to SPECIFICALLY remember all of the precise details of such a monumental and shocking event. Author "Luke" would NOT have queried his "buddy" Paul a bit more thoroughly to get the story straight?

No. Author "Luke" never knew Paul. This is just another example clue ... of duplication, compiled from different sources ... by a compiler who has NO intimate knowledge of the described events himself.

Finally, there is the point about Peter accusing Jews of having killed Jesus and then hanging his body on a tree.

Pope doesn't address that item either ... aside from making a smart remark about it.

And then he has the Chutzpah to suggest to me that I "get over it" ?!?^^

I ask you, my dear reader friend ....

Who is the sensible one in this exchange?

-Vince




<blockquote>Vince Said: Did I indicate in ANY way that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were NOT compiled by the same person? No I did not.
Oh, I see...
So, You were merely insinuating that I am under the impression...
That the Gospels were actually written...
By the people whose NAMES are Attached to them...
Simply because I used the Convenience...
Of referring to the Author of the "Gospel According to Luke"...
And, the "Book of Acts"...
-- As "Luke, the Physician"...?

And here I was...
Giving you the benefit of the doubt...
Because...
I didn't think that YOU thought...
-- That I was THAT Stupid.

Well, excuse me for making THAT error.
And...
Thanks for clearing it Alllll Up.
Vince Said: My assertion of duplication in the Acts text .... was completely IGNORED by Pope.
*-ahem-*...
Apparently, you missed it...
But, I DID Indeed address your Rambling Non Sequitur...
I said...
As for your concern about Paul's journeys...
Or, apparent "contradictions" within the text...
Well, that's all very quaint and interesting...
But... It has nothing to do with...
-- The Cruci-Fiction of the Christ.
And, when you finally RETURNED to the topic OF the Cruci-Fiction...
YOU Said...
Vince Said: And then finally, we come to that troublesome "slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30 ; 10:39).

First of all, Peter had ALREADY used the expression "crucified" THREE times in Acts, before using the quaint expression of "slew and hanged".

[-snip-]

These are the ONLY 3 occurrences where the word "crucified" is used in the book of Acts. In the subsequent 2 times, (Acts 5:30 ; 10:39) the expression is "slew and hanged on a tree."
To which I responded...
-- In Part...
Well, there you have it...
-- "Crucified" beats "Tree" by Three to Two.

Now, get over it.
And, since you're the one who dealt the numbers...
You're just going to have to live with the results.
-- "Crucified" beats "Tree" by Three to Two.

And, FYI...
Xulon is, more appropriately...
An Article MADE of Wood...
Like... a Staff, or a Pole, or...
-- A CROSS.

The word for "tree"...
-- Is "Dendron".

Go ahead...
-- Look it up.

And, if you really want to have a reasonable discussion about this...
Then...
-- Perhaps you might want to refrain from using the Shotgun Approach.

Because, if you continue along that vein...
Then, I will continue to address only those items...
Which I deem to be PERTINENT to the Subject at Hand.

Nanner-nanner...
-- So there.

-PRev1-
</blockquote>

President Barrack Hussein Obama

-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 14th, 2010, 1:19 am #8

You are only able to entertain one idea at a time. That's a pretty "Christian" trait. I guess you still suffer some, from "hangover."

In order to get a broad picture, it's necessary to differentiate the pieces and then try to logically integrate them into that picture again ... with a bit of memory retention on all the pieces. But that's what you feel to be too difficult for yourself to do? You call it a "shotgun approach." Oh well, that's ok then .... if you REALLY don't feel comfortable about broadening your perspective.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

February 14th, 2010, 1:47 am #9

And a rambling non sequitur...
Are totally different things, Vince.

Your basic argument involves Jesus being "hung" from a "tree".

And, as I have already told you...
It makes Not One Whit of a difference...
WHAT he was "Hung" upon...
Since...
-- He SURVIVED.

And, That's MY basic argument...
-- HE SURVIVED.

HOW He Survived...
Involves the assistance of the Essenes...
-- The many "Angels"...
-- (which actually means "Messengers")...
-- Dressed in white...
-- Of the Cruci-Fiction Tales.

You have not dealt with ANY of the points raised throughout this discussion...
But, instead, you prefer to raise an irrelevant point regarding a misinterpretation...
Which has rendered the Greek Word "Xulon" into English as the word "tree".

Again...
It doesn't matter WHAT he was hung upon...
-- Cross, Tree, Sky Hook...
It Doesn't Matter.
But, what DOES Matter...
Is...
Did He DIE during that event...
Or...
Did He Survive...?

And, I say...
-- He Survived.

Now, do you want to address any of the points that I have raised regarding this issue...?
-- Either Here
-- Or Here
Or...
Are you quite content to continue your ramblings about the authors of various texts not being who they are presented as...
While trying to change the topic to the inconsistancies of PAULINIAN Christianity...
And...
Insisting that the term "God Lover" refers to some character who wasn't even born until a century or so later...?

-PRev1-

President Barrack Hussein Obama

-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
Quote
Like
Share

Vince
Vince

February 14th, 2010, 5:55 am #10

Pope,

My apologies.

Ok, let's take this in more manageable "bite-sized" pieces then ...

What about the Watch or guard that Pilate granted, you wanted to know. Let's tackle that one issue by itself, as simply as we can...

The ONLY Gospel that mentions this Watch, is Matthew. In keeping with all 4 accounts, let's see if a guard would WORK with the other stories.

All 4 Gospels agree that a man by the name of "Joseph" asked for the body and then prepared the body, put it into his personal tomb and then put a large rock in front of it to seal the tomb.

[ Matt. 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus disciple:
58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Mark 15:45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

Luke 23:50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. ]

Matthew has a "great stone" rolled in front of the doorway; Mark has a "stone" rolled into the doorway .... Luke and John have NO stone rolled into the doorway -yet- (but obviously there IS a stone because in all 4 accounts, they later, find it rolled away).

Next....

[ Matt. 27:61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. ]

So there's a "little" problem with the Matthew story here, right off the bat .... because the body had already been wrapped and put into the cave, with a great stone rolled into the doorway ... with Mary M. and Mary, sitting right there beside the tomb, watching the entire process. If any disciples were going to steal the body, WHEN would they most likely do that? The very first night, naturally .... as QUICKLY as they could. What would be the point of putting a guard on the tomb the next evening, if/when the horse had already escaped?

[ Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Luke 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. ]

Mark and Luke say the women were bringing spices. That means they were expecting to anoint the body of Jesus with the spices. That means they didn't EXPECT the rock to be in place ... or... that somehow, they or someone else, would help them roll the rock away. What they certainly WEREN'T expecting, was a guard on the tomb ... or why would they bring spices to anoint the body if they couldn't get into the tomb anyway?

Matthew, Mark and Luke ALL agree that the women watched as the body was prepared and laid in the tomb. So they KNEW exactly WHAT had been done to the body already.

John states:

[ 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. ]

Therefore, the women SAW this happening. The body was ALREADY spiced and wrapped. Why then, would they come back after the Sabbath with spices?

This conflict rather rules out the spices aspect of the women coming to the tomb. This little adjunct then, is evidently just an embellishment to make some excuse for the women coming to the tomb. If they came with spices -extremely early in the morning- they would surely have had some plan to get the rock moved aside so that they could go INTO the cave. The spicing excuse for them coming then .... simply doesn't stand up or add up.

What have we got so far then?

Joseph of Arimathaea asked for the body and Pilate consented. Joseph prepared the body and wrapped it, laying it into his own PRIVATE tomb. This was PRIVATE PROPERTY. Any guard then, would have had to get permission from Joseph to be there .. or they would be trespassing.

Joseph fully prepared the body. All the women observed what happened to the body. They wouldn't have brought spices later because Joseph had already done that. They wouldn't have expected to go INTO the tomb either, if they had no plan to remove the rock. They CERTAINLY didn't expect any guard to be there. If they loved Jesus so much that they came to his tomb just to be there .... why wouldn't they have already been aware of this guard?

And finally -in Matthew- we have the chief priests and pharisees coming to Pilate with, " we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."

Yet, in GJohn we have the disciples ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT of the idea that Jesus should rise from the dead! "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." (John 20:9).

The stories simply do not corroborate each other, aside from a few simple things:

- Joseph asked for the body and prepared it and laid it into his own private tomb.
- There was a rock in front of the tomb.
- Certain women came to the tomb early in the morning.
- They found the rock gone and the body removed.

When you rule OUT the supernatural aspect of Jesus miraculously arising from the dead -as YOU do, Pope ....

It would mean that this alleged guard of Matthew's FAILED to achieve what they specifically set out to do: PREVENT that body from being removed. How could they fail? How could the disciples manage to outsmart them, seeing as -according to GJohn- they had absolutely NO IDEA that Jesus was supposed to rise from the dead in the first place?

It's possible that the body of Jesus was stolen from the grave but it's not even remotely probable that a special guard was assigned to PREVENT the body's removal .... and then failed.

Seeing Matthews penchant for exaggeration and outright fabrication of events -like virgin Mary being impregnated by the holy ghost ... and 3 wise men from the east coming to Jerusalem to ask directions to the manger ... and Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to Egypt to escape the slaughter of the innocents ... and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on TWO donkeys at once (to fulfill prophecy) ....

It's obvious that he invented the story of the tomb watch as well.

-Vince











Quote
Share