Roman seal on Christ's tomb

Page 2 of 3 (46 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 45 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 376
Dan Sheppard | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 17 2011 6:06 PM

I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals.

Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No".  The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.

 

Posts 19577
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 17 2011 6:11 PM

Dan Sheppard:

I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals.

Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No".  The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.

Argh, argh, argh. 

Posts 1145
William | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 17 2011 6:19 PM

Rosie!!!!  That is quite enough!!!!!Big Smile ROFL

Posts 19577
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 17 2011 6:26 PM

William Bingham:

Rosie!!!!  That is quite enough!!!!!Big Smile ROFL

Hey, Dan made the pun first. I couldn't help but reply to it.

Posts 128
Simon Pleasants | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 18 2011 2:58 AM

Jack Caviness:

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...Wink

"Upon a life I did not live, Upon a death I did not die, Another's life, another's death, I stake my whole eternity"

Horatius Bonar

Posts 10886
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 18 2011 3:02 AM

Simon Pleasants:

Jack Caviness:

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...Wink

Big Smile Very good! Yes

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 18 2011 5:24 AM

Jack Caviness:

Simon Pleasants:

Jack Caviness:

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...Wink

Big Smile Very good! Yes

With primary forum guidance being how to use Logos Bible Software, friendly discussions about hermeneutical and theological research using Logos Bible Software seems appropriate.  Thankful for breadth and depth of library material available in Logos; likewise Thankful for resources being developed plus more suggestions.

Caution: good idea to put Coffee out of way before following other locked "hijacking" replies that helped seal some forum guidelines.  Found thought provoking Math in one reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6836/56564.aspx#56564

Could add 0 x 9 + 1 = 1 to 2nd list

For 3rd list, could add 0 x 9 + 8 = 8

and 987654321 x 9 - 1 = 8888888888

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 18 2011 5:44 AM

Jack Caviness:
Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

 

Since the phrase can be translated "you have a guard" or "Take a guard" and the translations are pretty divided...the relevant passage seems to be the one above...this provides the context for what is being addressed....they must be Roman Guards....right?

 

The commentaries seem to agree.

 

PS: this was an interesting study....thanks!

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 693
Ted Weis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 18 2011 6:13 PM

Fascinating discussion, as I never even thought the guard was anything but Roman.

I've pasted the significant portions of this thread into my Logos passage notes!

Posts 2
Jim Berglund | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 2 2018 7:58 AM

I really appreciated the insight I haven't found this anywhere else. Would you have the reference and the exact quote?

Posts 2
Jim Berglund | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 2 2018 8:16 AM

Carey G Pearson, thank you for this quote I haven't found it anywhere else. Could you give me a footnoted reference and exact quote please! Jim Berglund pstjim@gmail.com

Posts 2961
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 2 2018 2:03 PM

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!]] 

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 2 2018 3:54 PM

David Ames:

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. 

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 2961
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 2 2018 4:38 PM

Denise:

David Ames:

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. 

Posts 2961
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 7 2018 4:47 AM

Denise:

"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?]]

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 7 2018 7:59 AM

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!

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 2961
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 8 2018 5:08 AM

Denise:
  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:
  What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery). 

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 8 2018 9:46 AM

David Ames:

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.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 1
Mary Clare Wallace | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 20 2020 1:50 AM

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. 

🙋 🙏

Page 2 of 3 (46 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS