Roman seal on Christ's tomb
Comments
-
My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]
BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke.
The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad.
One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards?
The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]
0 -
David Ames said:
My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]
BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke.
The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad.
One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards?
The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]
"Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:David Ames said:
My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]
[[Not a salvation issue!]]
"Not a salvation issue" ???? or !!!!
If they were Roman Soldiers or Jewish Temple Guards is not, IMHO, a salvation issue.
My thoughts on when the guards were placed is no later than 2 hours after sunset Friday evening and that they opened the tomb to see that the Body was still there and that a least two of the guards knew Jesus by sight [He spent much time in the Temple that last week] so that they could id what body was there. [just IMHO]
I think that the high priest ran to Pilate as soon as he heard who got the body.
0 -
Some old forum posts if this helps:
0 -
Denise said:
"Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.
Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
If the day of the preparation is what we call Friday a simple reading would call the next day Saturday. BUT Jesus died about 3 in the afternoon on Friday [the way most believe it happened – others believe He died on Wednesday or Thursday but this discussion uses Friday] The next day would be Saturday except that the day ended at Sunset [as seen by at least half the Jews of that time] so the next day would cover Friday Evening. That’s why I think [rather than know or believe] that “the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate” some time before 7 pm Friday evening. [Not waiting until 7 am Saturday morning] So the tomb could have been guarded as soon as 8 pm Friday night. [IMHO] [[Just defending my stand on this. How did Matthew define the next day? Friday evening or Saturday Sunrise or the Midnight between the two?]]
0 -
Well, David, I'm impressed with your helpfulness to the writer of Matthew. Although, a simple reading and the greek seems to demonstrate the writer is intent on the chronology (next immediate day after Mary and other Mary sat looking at the tomb).
I'm always impressed with the length and detail of the gospel writers' efforts. Try just copying a chapter ... it's pretty tedious. Then imagine poor light, ink all over the place, and cleaned material just for your first draft, much less edits.
From a secular point of view, the writers were not likely amateurs. They knew their business. Then if you believe in the Holy Spirit's participation, you have to assume the writing was as intended. What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).
My opinion, of course!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
My opinion, of course!
I always respect your opinion. [Or try to anyway]
But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]
The Gospel writers don't give the times so, as you state:
Denise said: What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).
0 -
David Ames said:
But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]
Interesting question. My marriage is an international one. And so, 'next' is always a major issue. Next week switches at Saturday 11:59, or Sunday 11:59? And tomorrow at 12:01 is always greeted with laughter ... today or tomorrow?? At work, next year for accountants was different from next year, for marketing.
In the NT, if you're curious, there's a bunch of tomorrows. But they bounce around by greek expression (3), and author (narritives tend to vary from epistles). It's hard to find a tomorrow (conceivably jewish) that's today (greek). And given the ubiquity of greek culture, it's hard to imagine the Matthew writer playing games with the diaspora (greek readers).
But interesting patterns.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I just read on an internet site (Wikipedia?) that a contingent of Roman soldiers would have numbered sixteen. Since they were not allowed to sit or lean on guard duty, and since falling asleep by one soldier would have garnered an unpleasant death for all sixteen guards...AND since in all Catholic bibles it alludes to the guards numbering in threes and fours, it's doubtful that the guards were Roman. Now, if you take into consideration the fact that Pilate was reticent to execute Christ to begin with, and would have found it even more ridiculous to guard Him once He was dead, he'd have probably shut the Pharisees up by letting them guard the tomb with their own temple guards who wouldn't have had jurisdiction to do so, even though the argument exists that the Pharisees may have preferred the Romans do so lest the Apostles claim the temple guards got rid of Christ should he get the better of the temple guards and get away from them anyway...wait,...what?! That's ludicrous!! The Pharisees would NEVER have believed anything about Christ really being able to rise from the dead, AND would have asked Pilate to put a bounty on the heads of the Apostles if they tried anything, so a massive "yes" goes out to the temple guards being sufficient to the Pharisees in satisfying their need to prevent any hoo-hah from taking place. All the easier for them to keel over and snooze come midnight when it stands to reason that the Resurrection of Christ would no doubt have caused a ripple effect of circumstances to be set in play: First, a rarified air causing the guards not to fall asleep but to lose consciousness until dawn; Second, His complete physical restoration and simultaneous supernatural Resurrection to life, this imprinting in a electrophysical effect his imprint on the veil and the shrowd he was covered in; Third, His actual getting up and facing the door of the sepulchre, and the bursting of the seal and ropes; Fourth, His standing and becoming newly garbed as the cork-shaped NOT round disk-shaped stone was backed off and then rolled away from the door. Look up door shapes for second temple period tombs, you'll find that only the very wealthy could afford the pocket-enclosed disk-shaped doors. Joseph of Arimathea was the Minister of Mines, and while he was more affluent than his contemporaries, he was far from wealthy. The tombs of regular people had cork-shaped doors that, yes, could be rolled after the initial shove was made. However, I doubt that Christ literally "shoved" anything. He simply willed it.
And His Resurrection? Since He said to Caiaphus, "I and My Father are One and the Same!" this means that He is not only the Redeemer, but the Creator as well. So He resurrected Himself. Niiiiiice! Thanks for the read, and God bless.
🙋 🙏
0 -
Mary Clare Wallace said:
I just read on an internet site (Wikipedia?) that a contingent of Roman soldiers would have numbered sixteen. Since they were not allowed to sit or lean on guard duty, and since falling asleep by one soldier would have garnered an unpleasant death for all sixteen guards...
This was to be a longer then a few hours duty. Sixteen sounds like a good number. Four to be on duty. Four sleeping. Four relaxing. And four goofing off. Not sure how long each shift would be before they rotated responsibilities. Only the four on duty would be expected to be fully alert. If anything came up the four relaxing could come to duty while the four goofing off could wake the ones sleeping and then all sixteen join the on duty status. [maybe]
Mary Clare Wallace said:And His Resurrection? Since He said to Caiaphus, "I and My Father are One and the Same!" this means that He is not only the Redeemer, but the Creator as well. So He resurrected Himself. Niiiiiice! Thanks for the read, and God bless.
IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.
But we have zero evidence from Scripture. [And the commentaries are just the author's opinion] [[And welcome to the discussion]]
0 -
David Ames said:
IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself.
Now, David. You didn't need to IMHO. You could use your Logos, finding both (depending on the author).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
David Ames said:
IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.
But we have zero evidence from Scripture.
John 10:17-18
0 -
Jack Caviness said:David Ames said:
IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.
But we have zero evidence from Scripture.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
John 10:17-18
Yes, BUT when you perform a Sacrifice you lose something.Puddin’ said:
The sheep dies, it loses its life, we lose the use of the sheep, its wool, its meat.
IMHO if Jesus just took back His life then He also took back the Sacrifice.
IMHO to be a Sacrifice something must be lost for all time and eternity.
We (not all but most) worship a God in three persons.
All three persons are the combined God and each of the three is individually God.
Yes, the texts were said by Jesus BUT
It comes down to exactly what was lost in the Sacrifice.
IMHO if nothing was lost there was no Sacrifice.
IMHO if the Son took back His life and nothing was lost then there was no Sacrifice
Which is why IMHO it must have been the personage that we call the Father that called the personage that we call the Son back.
When one of the personages say “I” what does “he” mean? My personage? Some other personage? All of the personages in concert? Which of the personages did Jesus mean when He said “I”?0 -
Rather than engage in theological debate—which is clearly outside Forum Guidelines—I will refrain from any comment.
0
