About a Challenge to the Ressurection Account

[InquisitorKind]

What are people's thoughts on the following challenge to the ressurection account (rather poorly paraphrased for lack of time)?

The guards got drunk while on duty. The disciples took this oppourtunity and successfully stole the body.

(This was raised by a friend's friend of mine.)

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

On answer that I have heard to this is that the guards were Roman Soldiers.

The penalty for such derilection of duty was death. How likely would it be that a well trained disciplined soldier would risk death for a night of drunkeness.

Also consider how expensive alchohol was back then, and how weaker the drinks were. The amount of alchol needed to intoxicate an entire guard unit, in volume as well as in monetary value, would be nearly prohibative.

However, I have not really researched this to verify how accurate this statement is, but on the face of it seems reasonable.

I have no doubt that someone can either verify or deny the credibility of this.

Hope this helps.

[Jaltus]

For that matter, Matthew talks about that in his gospel.

Matthew 28:11-15

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Even at the time of the resurrection, none of the Jews were able to dispute that He was risen. There were too many witnesses.

I Corinthians 14:4-8

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[InquisitorKind]

Faramir:
On answer that I have heard to this is that the guards were Roman Soldiers.

The penalty for such derilection of duty was death. How likely would it be that a well trained disciplined soldier would risk death for a night of drunkeness.

Also consider how expensive alchohol was back then, and how weaker the drinks were. The amount of alchol needed to intoxicate an entire guard unit, in volume as well as in monetary value, would be nearly prohibative.

However, I have not really researched this to verify how accurate this statement is, but on the face of it seems reasonable.

I have no doubt that someone can either verify or deny the credibility of this.

Hope this helps.

Yes, it does help. I have heard the part about the guards being Roman Soldiers and thus extremely disciplined. (I believe Josh McDowell (sp?) mentioned it in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict.)

Now, the historical information regarding ancient alcohol is extrememly interesting. I wonder if there are any history buffs that would be willing shed some light on this?

Thanks for your input Faramir,
~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

Jaltus:
For that matter, Matthew talks about that in his gospel.

Matthew 28:11-15

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Even at the time of the resurrection, none of the Jews were able to dispute that He was risen. There were too many witnesses.

I Corinthians 14:4-8

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Referencing Scripture always comes to mind when there are doubters of the Resurrection. I only have one question (quoting these passages was otherwise perfect):

Does convincing (well, "convincing") someone of the validity of the Resurrection eventually come down to an argument about the authenticity of the Gospel accounts?

Just wondering what your thoughts were on that,
~Matt

[Socrates]

InquisitorKind:
The guards got drunk while on duty. The disciples took this opportunity and successfully stole the body.

And later, under torture and threat of death, none of them fessed up to the fact that their religion was based on a hoax. As Josh McD points out, while people may die for a lie, no-one would die for what he KNOWS is a lie.

Further, Chuck Colson was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal and later converted and is now a Christian apologist. With his personal experience of conspiracies to try to cover things up, he knows that they always leak out somehow.

[InquisitorKind]

Socrates:

And later, under torture and threat of death, none of them fessed up to the fact that their religion was based on a hoax. As Josh McD points out, while people may die for a lie, no-one would die for what he KNOWS is a lie.

Further, Chuck Colson was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal and later converted and is now a Christian apologist. With his personal experience of conspiracies to try to cover things up, he knows that they always leak out somehow.


Indeed. I think that is one of the best defenses for the validity of the Gospel. At least SOME of them would've cracked trying to defend a false ideal.

Thanks for your input. (I like your signature.)

~Matt

[b488]

...on the matter of convincing of those who question the Resurrection based on the validity of the gospel accounts.

I think it is incredibly important in light of the centrality of the Resurrection to the christian faith. (that is was a historical event)
Paul says in 1 corinthians 15 (i hope :p ) that if there is no ressurrection our faith is in vain. My view on the scriptures is that they are reliable and true in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that the Rez is the litmus test for this idea and deserves all the attention it invariably gets from believers and non-believers alike.

the accounts' validity should be evaluated in terms of its historicity.....right?

Well its been fun interrrupting this fine conversation, but i have to cause trouble somewhere else now. Ciao! :thumb:

[InquisitorKind]

b488:
...on the matter of convincing of those who question the Resurrection based on the validity of the gospel accounts.

I think it is incredibly important in light of the centrality of the Resurrection to the christian faith. (that is was a historical event)
Paul says in 1 corinthians 15 (i hope :p ) that if there is no ressurrection our faith is in vain. My view on the scriptures is that they are reliable and true in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that the Rez is the litmus test for this idea and deserves all the attention it invariably gets from believers and non-believers alike.

the accounts' validity should be evaluated in terms of its historicity.....right?

Well its been fun interrrupting this fine conversation, but i have to cause trouble somewhere else now. Ciao! :thumb:

All thoughts are more than welcome on this subject. :)

It is incredibly, totally, 100%, dudialitey...er...nm...Indeed, it's quite important that the resurrection is a historic fact!

I agree with your sentiments.

~Matt

[Jaltus]

Does convincing (well, "convincing") someone of the validity of the Resurrection eventually come down to an argument about the authenticity of the Gospel accounts? Yes and no. one must be convinced that the resurrection is true (as it is said in the gospels to be true), but one need not stick verbatim to the gospel account in order to be saved.

A belief in the resurrection of Christ (plus other stuff) is what saves, not belief in the gospel's account of it.

[InquisitorKind]

Jaltus:
A belief in the resurrection of Christ (plus other stuff) is what saves, not belief in the gospel's account of it.

Explain what this other "stuff" is. :huh:

Thanks,
~Matt

[Patroclus]

And later, under torture and threat of death, none of them fessed up to the fact that their religion was based on a hoax. As Josh McD points out, while people may die for a lie, no-one would die for what he KNOWS is a lie.

Further, Chuck Colson was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal and later converted and is now a Christian apologist. With his personal experience of conspiracies to try to cover things up, he knows that they always leak out somehow.

While it seems reasonable, this is not necessarily true because it cannot be proven--in fact, given enough study, I am sure you will cases to the opposite, though they are rare.

Also, plenty of people, under threat of death, renounced their faith. It was a significant problem for the early church. The argument could just as well be made that, in order to preserve their power, the disciples may have made a pact never to reveal the truth of their experiences.

Of course, I think such speculating is rediculous, but listening to what McDowell says is not necessarily the best course of action either.

[Jaltus]

I am referring to the historic orthodox beliefs.

The Trinity
Christ is God and man.
He took our sins.
He is Lord of your (or whoever is being saved) life.

I think those are the biggies. Let me know if I am leaving something out.

[InquisitorKind]

Jaltus:
I am referring to the historic orthodox beliefs.

The Trinity
Christ is God and man.
He took our sins.
He is Lord of your (or whoever is being saved) life.

I think those are the biggies. Let me know if I am leaving something out.

Although I question if it's totally necessary to believe in the Trinity, I agree with these for now.

If anyone else thinks more should be added, let me know...

Thanks,
~Matt

[Socrates]

S:
And later, under torture and threat of death, none of them fessed up to the fact that their religion was based on a hoax. As Josh McD points out, while people may die for a lie, no-one would die for what he KNOWS is a lie.

Further, Chuck Colson was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal and later converted and is now a Christian apologist. With his personal experience of conspiracies to try to cover things up, he knows that they always leak out somehow.Patroclus:
it seems reasonable, this is not necessarily true because it cannot be proven--in fact, given enough study, I am sure you will cases to the opposite, though they are rare. I'm waiting for evidence, not speculation.
Also, plenty of people, under threat of death, renounced their faith. It was a significant problem for the early church.This strengthens my point!! The actual professing eye-witnesses did NOT.
The argument could just as well be made that, in order to preserve their power, the disciples may have made a pact never to reveal the truth of their experiences. Pacts go by the wayside under torture and death.
Of course, I think such speculating is rediculous, but listening to what McDowell says is not necessarily the best course of action either.He's a good start. Then graduate to William Lane Craig.

[JCA]

Actually, I have a quick question..

The reference to 1 Cor 14:4:

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Do you know where this reference is that is mentioned? In what scripture where is this prediction made?

I think it has been pointed out before, but I forget where..

Thanks.

Love and Peace

JCA

[InquisitorKind]

JCA:
Actually, I have a quick question..

The reference to 1 Cor 14:4:

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Do you know where this reference is that is mentioned? In what scripture where is this prediction made?

I think it has been pointed out before, but I forget where..

Thanks.

Love and Peace

JCA

I believe even Jesus himself mentions this...I would be happy to get the exact references, but I have to read some Plato and finish up long readings of Sola Scriptura discussions at Catholicity.com.

If nobody helps out, I'll do it later...until then...

Off to read, :read:
~Matt

[JCA]

Christ mentions that He will rise again, but it is the reference to 3 days that I am looking for.

Although 3 was an 'important' number for much of Judaism, I just can't seem to find a reference in the OT that mentions the Christ being resurrected on the 3rd day, or anywhere else for that matter..

So yes, please.. someone help out :D

Love and Peace

JCA

[InquisitorKind]

JCA:
Christ mentions that He will rise again, but it is the reference to 3 days that I am looking for.

Although 3 was an 'important' number for much of Judaism, I just can't seem to find a reference in the OT that mentions the Christ being resurrected on the 3rd day, or anywhere else for that matter..

So yes, please.. someone help out :D

Love and Peace

JCA

Ok, looks like nobody else will help...I've got some time now (Plato is very interesting...).

Christ himself references the OT story of Jonah in discussing his resurrection on the third day. You can find Jesus' exact words on the topic in Matthew 12:40 (where he is referencing Jonah 1:17). Also, Jesus speaks of these three days in Matthew 26:61 (with future references to that passage in Matthew 27:40 and Matthew 27:63). There are some similar passages in the other synoptic Gospels as well as at least two in John. (If you would like those references as well, please do ask.) Otherwise, I am unaware of any other three day passages, in reference to Christ's resurrection that is, in the OT.

Please let me know if this helps,
~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

JCA:
Christ mentions that He will rise again, but it is the reference to 3 days that I am looking for.

Although 3 was an 'important' number for much of Judaism, I just can't seem to find a reference in the OT that mentions the Christ being resurrected on the 3rd day, or anywhere else for that matter..

So yes, please.. someone help out :D

Love and Peace

JCA

(Add this to my other post...or as a replacement...or whatever...)

:idea: (Although this face isn't smiling.)

Since Paul's letters were written before the Gospels, how could Paul be referencing them? :huh: Hmm...I can think of two possibilities:

1) That Paul's definition of Scripture includes God's oral word (ie that he was referencing Jesus' words as Scripture).

2 a) My Biblical knowledge of OT references to Christ's resurrection (as pertaining to the time he would be dead) are lacking.

2 b) I could be completely wrong on the dating of the Pauline letters.

Either way, this is a very interesting question you have posed. I will post it on a larger Christian Apologetics board.

~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

Now that I've completely bored you to tears, I'll give you the site where I posted the question.

If you don't feel like checking back for responses over there, please let me know and I'll give you an answer when I receive one.

Here's the link. (http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=1182&mesg_id=1182&page=)

~Matt

[JCA]

Thanks for the answers you did supply, but yes, you ran into the same problem I did.. that there is an inference that this prophecy was made BEFORE the NT Gospels.. otherwise you have someone making a prophecy out of something that has happened, and not what WILL happen..

If you get my drift :)

I will check out the link, but if you do come across any more info on this, I would much appreciate it.

Love and Peace

JCA

[InquisitorKind]

JCA:
Thanks for the answers you did supply, but yes, you ran into the same problem I did.. that there is an inference that this prophecy was made BEFORE the NT Gospels.. otherwise you have someone making a prophecy out of something that has happened, and not what WILL happen..

If you get my drift :)

I will check out the link, but if you do come across any more info on this, I would much appreciate it.

Love and Peace

JCA

If nothing can be found, it'll probably have to go back to how Paul is defining Scripture.

*sigh* :)

I'll keep you updated if anything big comes up,
~Matt

[Jaltus]

Just so you know, in I Timothy 5:18, Paul calls Luke's gospel scripture.

[JCA]

Nods.. actually, yes, I was aware of that :)

But if we are sticking to that as being the reference, I mean that passage from the Bible, then we should do that all around, and I don't see anywhere where the same regard is returned.. in other words, is there also a place where Pauls Gospel is called "scripture"? Or Matthews?

Although I understand that it could imply that, is it supported by any verses?

Thanks though :) As it does lend credence to the thought that maybe they where talking about their own 'Gospel" and not one that had been recorded as of yet - or at that time I should say.. and as it does fit the standard pattern of '3', it isn't far to go to think so.

Love and Peace

JCA

[Ishmael]

:bonk:

[Socrates]

JCA:
But if we are sticking to that as being the reference, I mean that passage from the Bible, then we should do that all around, and I don't see anywhere where the same regard is returned.. in other words, is there also a place where Pauls Gospel is called "scripture"?Yes, in 2 Peter 3:15–16, although Paul's writings are usually called Epistles rather than Gospels.



Or Matthews?Not explicitly, but it's implicit in that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, all the NT had been written except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John’s writings.

[JCA]

Calvinist:
:bonk:

Are you spamming just to get your post count up: :D

Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

Socrates:
Yes, in 2 Peter 3:15–16, although Paul's writings are usually called Epistles rather than Gospels.


Not explicitly, but it's implicit in that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, all the NT had been written except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John’s writings.

Nods. yes.. I had forgotten to take some of that into account.

I will do some more digging. :D

Love and Peace

[Ryokan]

worth pointing out: I don't think alchol was very expensive, as it was a drink of choice cuz it was sterile. And I don't think the alcholic content was very high, as very small children drank.

[Blake Reas]

I have read better challenges to the Resurrection!:rofl:

In Christ,
Blake

[JCA]

To be honest, I didn't think anyone in the thread so far was challenging the Resurrection account :teeth:

I know I certainly wasn't.. I just wanted to find a reference for something mentioned..

However, seeing as you said you have seen better, maybe you can share with us so we can examine them, as the thread topic implies..

Or was you spamming for post count? :tongue:

Love and Peace

JCA