Re: Descendants and Thomas Trap

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:02:01 -0500 (EST)

At 08:14 PM 11/23/98 -0800, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>At 02:28 PM 11/23/98 EST, wrote:
>>In reply to my point that historical documents could be found which
>>invalidated the NT documents, you replied:
>><< We know that such a document existed at one time or some document like
>> <<Matt 28:11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went
>> 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.'
>> <>
>>"The obvious claims of the guards" are obviously not eye-witness accounts and
>>are, in fact, self-contradictory since people who are asleep see nothing.

Am I missing the depth of the discussion? People who are asleep can still
testify to the before and after their sleep. So long as what happened in
between does not lead to their awakening, then that particular event could
indeed had happened. The resurrection of Christ, for those who did not
experience His death, will forever be a matter of faith. Otherwise,
everybody would be a believer. I do not think God intended to interfere with
our free will that much.


> A note of caution: No one should misunderstand me below, I do believe in
>the resurrection, I merely am arguing from the logical position that there
>is really no scientific data that can support the resurrection, and like
>what we do with early Genesis, we do with the rest of Scripture. If
>evidence goes against the scripture we make it true in our eyes anyway.
>I agree with what you say above no one who is asleep can see what is
>happening. I merely was pointing out that something very similar to what
>you requested did exist. And it is discounted. You discount it based upon
>the evidence given by one side--that of the apostles. You haven't and can't
>hear the other side of the issue, which might be different than was
>reported by the Christian partisans. For instance, consider the fact that
>YEC christians often misrepresent the facts in support of their views. How
>do you eliminate this possibility from your dismissal of the guard's story?
>What if their story had been that while some slept, the guard was accosted
>and knocked out, but that fact wasn't reported in Scripture? The fact that
>you so easily dismiss the account of the guards means that you aren't
>looking at alternative possibilities. One of the possibilities is that
>people lie--both roman guards, Jewish Priests and Christian Apostles
>(Peter's denial).
>Given your quick denial of any truth to the guard's tale, don't you think a
>similar document attesting that Jesus' body rotted in the grave would be
>discounted? What do you think that a medieval monk would do with such a
>document if he had found it??? Do you think he would have filed it in the
>Library of the Vatican? I think it would land in the nearest fire like the
>documents about the Aztec religion did or like the documents written by the
>Easter Islanders did. Christians, unfortunately, have not been kind to the
>documents of other religions.
>BTW this was a very dangerous strategy for the guards. Sleeping on duty
>then as now, could result in a death sentence. One could say that this
>would be good evidence that the guards wouldn't agree to such a tale and
>that we don't have the entire story. I know we don't have both sides.
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>& lots of creation/evolution information