If any of the soldiers at the tomb converted and were executed, they would have been the first martyrs, martyred even before Steven, Proto-Martyr. That seems unlikely. I mean, how would the Church have missed that?
So, conversion-execution definitely didn't happen.
If any of the soldiers guarding the tomb converted but were not martyred, everyone was very quiet about it. Think of the picayune details that we are given. We even know Joseph of Nicodemus donated the tomb. That's a pretty minor player. But, despite naming all these minor players, no one mentions the soldier(s) who converted as a result of what they saw at the tomb? Seriously? They talk about every other player, even women, but not actual eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection?
But you imply Luke was thinking to himself, "Sure, I've interviewed a lot of witnesses for my Gospel and for Acts, and soldier George is an eye witness to the single most important event in this entire story, the very reason we are even writing any of this down... Because of what he personally witnessed, he became a follower of Jesus Christ.... hmm...
However, in the 'cons' column, soldier George isn't an apostle, so his conversion story and the details of what he saw at the tomb aren't nearly as important as all the things that the women and the apostles DID NOT see, so ... yeah.... let's leave George's account out. It is not really relevant"
Somehow, I doubt that would be Luke's reaction to news that a Roman guard converted as a result of what he saw at the tomb.
Which indicates that none of the soldiers who actually would have been eyewitnesses to the actual event of the resurrection ever converted.
FYI, the story of Longinus doesn't appear until the fourth century. The soldier's name was unknown to the Gospel writers, but the Gospel of Nicodemus, from which the name first derives, also names the thieves on either side of Jesus.
18 comments:
Being Romans, they may have thought the angel was a pagan god. Maybe they thought that the gods were intervening in the situation for some unknown reason. Without the gift of faith, they would have had that explanation in their heads that would have prevented them from believing the Gospel. Or maybe they converted later on their deathbeds, for all we know. St Luke wasn't at the deathbed to write down the testimony.
Again, you honestly think a deathbed conversion like that wouldn't have been passed on? That such a prominent conversion of a Roman soldier would have been lost to history?
God would have permitted that, eh?
I don't claim to know what God permits or doesn't permit. His ways are mysterious. I do know that some human beings exhibit an immense ability to disbelieve, even in the face of evidence. Like Emile Zola, who witnessed miracles at Lourdes yet refused to believe. Maybe that was the case with the soldiers.
If you don't know what God does or doesn't permit, then how do you know Emile Zola was wrong to refuse to believe? After all, the Church definitively states that we do not need private revelation for salvation, nor do we need to accept any private revelation.
Since the miracles are the products of private revelation, even a good Catholic could refuse to accept all the apparitions and all the associated miracles, and still be a good Catholic who goes straight to heaven. St. John of the Cross explicitly said to ignore private revelation. So, when Emile Zola ignored the miracles you allege, wasn't Zola following the teachings of a Doctor of the Church and the teachings of the Church Herself?
See https://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2014/12/on-apparitions.html
CCC 67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.
I'm not saying that Emile Zola should have believed in Lourdes with divine faith; that's not even required of Catholics. I'm saying that he witnessed miraculous healings that might have convinced others, yet he still refused to believe, even with human faith (which the Church does permit). My overall point is that human beings can exhibit an immense ability to disbelieve, even in the face of evidence, if that's what they really want to do. That could have been the case with the guards at the tomb. It would not negate the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, however.
“No acceptance of miracles is required of the Catholic in order that he may avoid the charge of heresy … and … he may even thrust aside all ecclesiastical miracles as pious fables and modern miracles as the offspring of a fervid imagination or as a deliberate imposture. … There has been no decision respecting the miracles of Lourdes, which binds the conscience of the Faithful.” See Clarke, Lourdes and Its Miracles, 89–92. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 3, Article 2, Grace, §2003.
Did Zola witness something that the Church approved as a miracle?
Or did Zola merely witness something which other people asserted was a miracle, but the Church did NOT formally approve as a miracle?
If the latter, then why are you chastising Zola? Why even bring Zola up?
It's pure dishonesty on your part. It's like chastising a Catholic for not wearing a Brown Scapular or for not doing First Fridays. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED to make that kind of judgement or invoke opprobrium on someone who chooses not to accept your private devotions.
Yet, that is EXACTLY what you are doing when you bring up Emile Zola. You pretend that he has violated some standard of human decorum, when he has not.
"“No acceptance of miracles is required of the Catholic in order that he may avoid the charge of heresy "
I'm not charging Zola with heresy. Never said anything like that.
>"If the latter, then why are you chastising Zola? Why even bring Zola up?"
Am I chastising Zola? The word "chastise" means "To criticize severely; reprimand or rebuke." Where did I severely criticize, reprimand or rebuke Emile Zola? I just pointed to him as one example of someone who witnessed a miracle yet refused to believe. He's hardly the only person who ever did that. It's something that some people do.
>"It's pure dishonesty on your part. It's like chastising a Catholic for not wearing a Brown Scapular or for not doing First Fridays."
I would never chastise a Catholic for not doing First Fridays, since I haven't done that devotion myself. And though I wear the Brown Scapular I've never judged those who don't. You don't know me.
>"Yet, that is EXACTLY what you are doing when you bring up Emile Zola. You pretend that he has violated some standard of human decorum, when he has not."
No, I just pointed out that he still refused to believe in the face of a healing that he and the doctors couldn't explain.
If anyone is chastising anyone here, it is you who are chastising me for doing things that I haven't done.
Okay, this discussion has gone off in a tangent about Emile Zola. So let's put him aside and return to your original argument:
>"Which indicates that none of the soldiers who actually would have been eyewitnesses to the actual event of the resurrection ever converted."
Were the soldiers really eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Christ? St. Matthew is the only one who records what the guards actually saw:
"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." - Matthew 28:2-4 RSV-CE, emphasis mine.
Note that the guards saw the angel, not Jesus. They fainted out of fear of the angel, not the Risen Christ.
A priest once told me that it is an ancient Christian tradition that Christ rose from the dead at midnight. He left the tomb, not through the entrance, but passed through the walls of the tomb, the same way that He would later enter the locked room where the Apostles were hiding (John 20:19).
I know the Resurrection is sometimes depicted in art as Jesus walking out of the tomb on Easter morning, but the Gospels don't say that's what happened. Nor does Christian tradition, apparently.
The reason why the angel descended and rolled away the stone was not to let Jesus out, but to a) shock and incapacitate the guards so they wouldn't harass the women and b) show the women that His body was already gone.
So no, the guards were not "actual eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection." They saw an angel descend from heaven and roll away the stone. They didn't see the Risen Lord Himself the way St Mary Magdalene, the other women and the Apostles later saw Him. Therefore, even if they had converted, their testimony would not have been as powerful as you think.
And maybe they did ultimately convert. Maybe they were the source of St. Matthew's account. Maybe their testimony wasn't touted as much as that of St Mary Magdalene et. al. because all the guards could say was: "We saw a bright angel descend and open the tomb. We didn't see Jesus Himself, we just passed out after seeing the angel." That's not a witness of the Resurrection.
Whatever the soldiers saw, they didn't convert. Whatever any of the Gospel writers wrote down, they had to have gotten from the eyewitnesses. The only possible eyewitnesses to anything were the soldiers. Who didn't convert.
And now you're arguing the soldiers DID convert, but Luke - who interviewed ALL the eyewitnesses he could find - left out the testimony of the newly converted soldiers who were the closest thing to eyewitnesses because he didn't think their testimony important. Sure.
How do you know they didn't see the resurrected Christ? Christ reportedly appears to hundreds. The only reason you don't think they saw Him is because NO ONE mentions converted soldiers. Maybe no one mentions converted soldiers because they saw miracles ... and didn't convert. Sure.
I'm not arguing that the soldiers DID convert, I said MAYBE they did ultimately convert, but their testimony didn't include witnessing the Resurrection or seeing Jesus at all. Don't build a straw man of my argument.
I know they didn't see the Risen Christ because He had already left the tomb when the angel descended. The passage in Matthew is clear: "...an angel of the Lord came down from heaven.... The guards were so afraid of *him* (the angel) that they shook and became like dead men."
They saw the angel, not Jesus. They did not witness the Resurrection itself; that had already occurred hours earlier. They did not see the Risen Christ as St. Mary Magdalen, the other women and the Apostles would later.
Therefore, even if they did convert later, their testimony would have been exactly what we read in the Gospel of Matthew: We saw an angel descend from heaven, flashing like lightning, who rolled away the stone. We were terrified and then we passed out.
Anyway, your argument in the original post is that the guards were absolutely eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. That’s not a straw man of your argument; you said as much at least three times in the post:
>“They talk about every other player, even women, but not actual eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection?”
>“…and soldier George is an eye witness to the single most important event in this entire story”
>“Which indicates that none of the soldiers who actually would have been eyewitnesses to the actual event of the resurrection ever converted.”
But what if, whether or not they converted later, the soldiers were not actual eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Christ? This argument is in line with the Gospel of Matthew and Church tradition that Jesus arose earlier and left the tomb in a miraculous manner. If the soldiers did not personally witness the Resurrection with their own eyes, then your argument collapses.
I'm not arguing that the soldiers DID convert, I said MAYBE they did ultimately convert, but their testimony didn't include witnessing the Resurrection or seeing Jesus at all. Don't build a straw man of my argument.
I know they didn't see the Risen Christ because He had already left the tomb when the angel descended. The passage in Matthew is clear: "...an angel of the Lord came down from heaven.... The guards were so afraid of *him* (the angel) that they shook and became like dead men."
They saw the angel, not Jesus. They did not witness the Resurrection itself; that had already occurred hours earlier. They did not see the Risen Christ as St. Mary Magdalen, the other women and the Apostles would later.
Therefore, even if they did convert later, their testimony would have been exactly what we read in the Gospel of Matthew: We saw an angel descend from heaven, flashing like lightning, who rolled away the stone. We were terrified and then we passed out.
Anyway, your argument in the original post is that the guards were absolutely eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. That’s not a straw man of your argument; you said as much at least three times in the post:
>“They talk about every other player, even women, but not actual eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection?”
>“…and soldier George is an eye witness to the single most important event in this entire story”
>“Which indicates that none of the soldiers who actually would have been eyewitnesses to the actual event of the resurrection ever converted.”
But what if, whether or not they converted later, the soldiers were not actual eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Christ? This argument is in line with the Gospel of Matthew and Church tradition that Jesus arose earlier and left the tomb in a miraculous manner. If the soldiers did not personally witness the Resurrection with their own eyes, then your argument collapses.
The soldiers saw an angel do miraculous things, but nothing else.
OK. Let's go with that.
Luke tells us about the women, he tells us about the apostles, but he doesn't tell us what happened to the soldiers at the tomb beyond "they became like dead men."
Of the three groups of people who end up at the tomb, the soldiers are the only group that don't get an accounting. If any converted, I find it hard to believe Luke wouldn't have mentioned that: "They became like dead men. Afterwards many of them believed and became disciples." One more sentence and that would have done it. But that second sentence isn't there.
Then you have the problem with the apostles (Matthew 18) "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Now, maybe this is just a compressed re-telling of John's Upper Room, where Christ gives them all authority, and later, where Thomas doubted. Singular vs plural problem, but let's ignore that.
The thing is, it isn't just a soldier conversion problem.
Actually, it's St Matthew, not St Luke, who tells us about the soldiers.
See, the problem with this whole discussion is that we have no idea what happened to the guards after the Resurrection. For all we know, the chief priests may have failed to keep them out of trouble with the governor (Matthew 28:14). Maybe they were put to death anyway, despite the intervention of the chief priests. Or maybe they were killed in battles or skirmishes within a short time after the Resurrection. In those cases, they wouldn't have even been alive when St. Luke wrote his Gospel.
We. Just. Don't. Know.
Your argument that, because we have no testimony from them, therefore they did not convert, is an argument from silence. Such arguments are not strong; there could be any number of reasons why they gave no testimony. Like I said, we don't even know how long they lived after the Resurrection. Soldiers do tend to die in battle.
Now you're bringing up a new issue: an alleged "problem with the apostles" doubting.
First, this was not in the original post at all. That was entirely about the soldiers at the tomb supposedly not converting because of the complete silence about them. Again, arguments from silence are weak.
As for the apostles doubting, they may have felt that at first. However, after Pentecost they boldly proclaimed the Resurrection of Christ, all but one of them suffering martyrdom - and St. John is said to have miraculously survived two martyrdom attempts: poisoning and being boiled in oil.
If the apostles had any doubts at first, the Holy Spirit strengthened their faith so much that they were willing to die for their witness to the Resurrection. People don't typically die for something they don't believe in. So I'd say their former doubts were gone by then.
Besides, the Church teaches that doubts are okay as long as one uses them as a springboard to seek the truth. Doubt does not necessarily equal disbelief.
On the original subject, there is zero evidence any of the soldiers - the people closest to the Resurrection - converted. If Luke had any knowledge of such a conversion, it is really hard to explain why he didn't mention that conversion. You certainly didn't manage to explain it.
On a secondary subject, we have solid, Scriptural evidence (not "allegation", but Scriptural testimony), that "some [apostles] doubted."
As for people dying for something they believe in, sure. But that doesn't mean they died for the truth. The Jonestown massacre is just one example of that. Mormon martyrs exist, but Mormonism is certainly a falsehood. Islam has a long history of missionary martyrdom. Accepting death for what you believe in proves nothing.
>>>On the original subject, there is zero evidence any of the soldiers - the people closest to the Resurrection - converted. If Luke had any knowledge of such a conversion, it is really hard to explain why he didn't mention that conversion. You certainly didn't manage to explain it.
I've been saying that we don't know what happened to the soldiers. Maybe the converted, maybe they didn't. In my last post, I said that maybe they died shortly after the Resurrection, or some time between the Resurrection and the writing of the Gospels. Then they couldn't have given a testimony either way.
I can't give an explanation because there are too many things we just don't know. But one thing we do know is that the soldiers did not witness the Resurrection, which happened in the early hours of Sunday morning. Nor did they see the Risen Lord, only the angel.
So again, your repeated assertion that they were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection is incorrect.
>>>On a secondary subject, we have solid, Scriptural evidence (not "allegation", but Scriptural testimony), that "some [apostles] doubted."
Yes.
>>>As for people dying for something they believe in, sure. But that doesn't mean they died for the truth.
Obviously people have died for something that is false. How many Jehovah's Witnesses have died after refusing blood transfusions?
That's why I said "People don't typically die for something they don't believe in." People are willing to die for something that they firmly believe is true. And the Apostles all died for the Resurrection of Christ. Meaning they had no more doubts by then.
>>>Accepting death for what you believe in proves nothing.
It proves that any doubts about your faith that you may have had at some point are gone.
"I've been saying that we don't know what happened to the soldiers."
Yeah, that's a pretty hard position to maintain. There's nothing in the Gospels, nothing in the letters, nothing in even tradition with a small "t" that indicates any of them converted. Even the legend of Longinus doesn't apply, since that didn't arise until something like the fifth century, and even then, that legend is not of a soldier guarding the tomb, but rather a soldier present at Christ's death.
In short, there is absolute and complete silence on this point. Given all the other kinds of people who big and little "t" T/tradition describe, it is pretty certain that none of the soldiers guarding the tomb converted.
You argue that the soldiers were not "eyewitnesses to the Resurrection" yet the Church calls the women and the apostles both "eyewitnesses to the Resurrection" even though they saw nothing except what the soldiers saw: an empty tomb and an angel.
Post a Comment