One question that stands out the most too me is, how were the Jews able too keep the guards out of trouble with the governor? if they were too fall asleep it would mean death from what I’ve heard. So what favor did the Jews do to keep the guards out of trouble? Besides them taking the money. the governor of Rome most likely had more money then the Pharisees so in what way did they lighten the burden for the guards? A high reputation amongst Jews was nothing too the Roman’s especially when they wanted nothing too do with the blood of an innocent man
I’m other words how did they tempt the governor of Rome to think otherwise of their original traditions especially with something as big as this. Romans were also known for trusting no one but themselves unless it’s for good reason. This is what does not make sense too me and I feel as if this the the barrier blocking the current Jews from believing the whole story. There is not enough evidence and yet it point negatively about their people. Fore no one wants too be cursed for killing the messiah. If though it already feels like they are
Likely it is due to the focus and audience of the various Gospel authors. Ultimately the focus for each author is the resurrection with this in mind, depending on the author, the guards are of limited importance, the empty tomb is the primary focus. Author’s audience also likely played a role, Mark had a Roman audience and Luke a Greek audience, Matthew had Jewish audience. John, written much later a broader church audience. Matthew’s approach is more apologetic addressing the Jewish reaction.
@@heavybar3850 Mark, Luke and John didn’t know that everyone believed that the disciples stole the body? That sounds like an accusation that would exist since day one. Or maybe only Matthew knew that there were guards at the tomb… or… like most historians believe… he made up the guards at the tomb to counter an objection to his beliefs… the same way that apologists do it today.
@@ramigilneas9274 Matthews claim that there was guards is not even a fool proof counter argument. Very little information is given, if he was trying to make a fool proof counter argument against the stolen body then he done a terrible job. If you want to see an apologetic lie then look at how the guard story is portrayed in the gospel of peter. Even the stolen body theory does very little in explaining the facts surrounding the ressurection. Theres far better facts that show the body was not stolen.
@@heavybar3850 Well, the entire burial in the tomb was probably a later invention that was added to the legend 30-40 years after Jesus died. But even if I grant the historically highly implausible burial in a tomb… a stolen body (or simply a removal of the corpse from the tomb) would still account for all of the historical "facts“.
Blessed 😇
One question that stands out the most too me is, how were the Jews able too keep the guards out of trouble with the governor? if they were too fall asleep it would mean death from what I’ve heard. So what favor did the Jews do to keep the guards out of trouble? Besides them taking the money. the governor of Rome most likely had more money then the Pharisees so in what way did they lighten the burden for the guards? A high reputation amongst Jews was nothing too the Roman’s especially when they wanted nothing too do with the blood of an innocent man
I’m other words how did they tempt the governor of Rome to think otherwise of their original traditions especially with something as big as this. Romans were also known for trusting no one but themselves unless it’s for good reason. This is what does not make sense too me and I feel as if this the the barrier blocking the current Jews from believing the whole story. There is not enough evidence and yet it point negatively about their people. Fore no one wants too be cursed for killing the messiah. If though it already feels like they are
So… why are the guards only mentioned by Matthew and by no one else?
Likely it is due to the focus and audience of the various Gospel authors.
Ultimately the focus for each author is the resurrection with this in mind, depending on the author, the guards are of limited importance, the empty tomb is the primary focus.
Author’s audience also likely played a role, Mark had a Roman audience and Luke a Greek audience, Matthew had Jewish audience. John, written much later a broader church audience.
Matthew’s approach is more apologetic addressing the Jewish reaction.
Jewish people were saying the body was stolen and Matthew was providing this information to refute those claims at the time
@@heavybar3850
Mark, Luke and John didn’t know that everyone believed that the disciples stole the body?
That sounds like an accusation that would exist since day one.
Or maybe only Matthew knew that there were guards at the tomb… or… like most historians believe… he made up the guards at the tomb to counter an objection to his beliefs… the same way that apologists do it today.
@@ramigilneas9274 Matthews claim that there was guards is not even a fool proof counter argument. Very little information is given, if he was trying to make a fool proof counter argument against the stolen body then he done a terrible job. If you want to see an apologetic lie then look at how the guard story is portrayed in the gospel of peter.
Even the stolen body theory does very little in explaining the facts surrounding the ressurection. Theres far better facts that show the body was not stolen.
@@heavybar3850
Well, the entire burial in the tomb was probably a later invention that was added to the legend 30-40 years after Jesus died.
But even if I grant the historically highly implausible burial in a tomb… a stolen body (or simply a removal of the corpse from the tomb) would still account for all of the historical "facts“.
Get on the Joe Rogan podcast with this Josh!