Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Attempts to Prove the Resurrection Message-ID: Date: 23 May 91 01:14:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 71 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Folks, Back shortly after Easter, a person asked about the empty tomb. How did we know the body wasn't stolen etc. A number of people wrote in suggesting that the heavy Roman guard on the tomb would have prevented this. I just finished reading "Evidence That Requires a Verdict", I found that the author also cites this argument, (several times actually). Mr. Clark (Our "Loyal Opposition") brought to our attention a story of a Roman guard whose compassion caused him to, (help me on this one if I get it wrong). Take a dying man down from a cross, and replace him with a dead body. There's really no need to go beyond the Gospels however... Matthew 28:11-15 11 While the women went on their way, some of the soldiers guarding the tomb went back to the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 The chief priests met with the elders and made their plan; they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, "You are to say that his disciples came during the night and stole his body while you were asleep. 14 And if the Govenor should hear of this, we will convince him that you are innocent, and you will have nothing to worry about." 15 The guards took the money and did what they were told to do. And so that is the report spread around by the Jews to this very day. (TEV) So, these guards by Matthew's account were not above taking a bribe. This conjures up all sorts of things. For instance, Pilate, upset with the way the Council has manipulated Rome in this matter decides to teach them a lesson. He goes to the grave, has the guard move the heavy stone, remove the body, and destroy it. So, I don't think we can use the account of the guard, or the heaviness of the stone as a proof that the body was not removed by earthly means. Here then for me is a stronger indication... Let us assume that the resurrection never took place. Therefore, everything after the crucifixion is a work of fiction. Doesn't this leave a glaring hole in the Gospels? There is no resurrection story! We don't have any account of Jesus emergence from the grave! We have no explanation of how the stone was rolled aside! Can you imagine someone freely making up stories about a man who had been crucified, and then came back to life. Can you imagine this person only telling stories about what the man did *after* he had come back to life? Many assume that the dramatic accounts of the crucifixion are works of fiction, (added for dramatic effect.) Can you imagine an author giving the death such a dramatic description, and then not including a resurrection scene? "And then the Earth shook to it's very foundations, and an angel of the most high appeared, and while a chorus of angels sounded trumpets, he roled the mighty stone aside. Jesus, appeared at the door of the tomb, dressed in a new robe of purest white, and the guards were frightened almost unto death..." (TRB) Well you get the idea... the resurrection is a central event of the Christian church. If the Gospel authors (or the disciples) took such great liberties with the truth, where is the resurrection account!? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton