I already covered this in multiple posts. There was an investigation and it was recorded in Matthew. You even quoted the very verse that showed there was an investigation in post#273.
Listen. I will explain this as clearly as humanly possible:
The investigation report said that a supernatural event occurred. Therefore the results of the report are in question. There is literally no rational explanation for what occurred, so you have to investigate again. What part of this do you not understand?
I explained all this in the post you are quoting. Didn’t you read it? I explained that yes there was an investigation and it would be moronic to perform a second investigation. Read the post again and stop playing games.
So you are saying that they were satisfied with having no rational explanation at all?
Now I am seeing a pattern as to why everything is going over your head; you do not actually read my post but apparently skim over them to pick out something to reply to. You apparently read the first line where I say yes and ignored my explanation as to why I said it. This is not a new angle it is the crux of my argument to show that your position was built on a fallacy argument.
That's rich coming from you. Chastising me for not reading Matthew 28, and then you are confused as to what I am referring to with the miracle being reported. You were relying upon your own casual recollection of the story, thinking the miracle was the resurrection, instead of READING the text and seeing what the miracle was (the appearance of an angel). If you bothered to read the text, you'd understand what the miracle was. You then attack me, calling me stupid, saying I need to read the text, when the reality is that you clearly did not read it. Do you realize what this makes you look like?
Yea right. So far you haven’t answered one question I put to you. All you have done is repeat your fallacious argument and have not provided one sliver of evidence to back it up. You keep saying there was no investigation and even quoted the verses that said there was. Forgive me if I do not believe you will ever explain, or for that matter able to explain, but your track record indicates you will not.
I don't care about your question. You think it is moronic to investigate an irrational report. You chastise me for not reading the gospel account when in fact you were the one who did not. Conversation with a wall would be more productive.
This thread is about the resurrection miracle.
No, it's about why there was no investigation. OK, OK, so you claim that the guards looked in the tomb and saw it was empty (do you actually have evidence for this?). The fact is that their report is fantastical, and needs to be investigated. Again, what part of this do you not understand?
I took your remark “Even more bizarre is the thought that the pharisees actually did believe the guards, that they did believe a miracle occurred” to mean the miracle of the resurrection.
Well, had you bothered to read Matthew 28, you'd see that it clearly states that the guards saw the angel, were afraid, fled, and told the pharisees what happened. You have absolutely no excuse for your ignorance.
I should have worded it to pinpoint that miracle instead I simply said miracles and you responded with the verses that recorded the event where the guards saw the angel.
No, you said that no miracle occurred. You were 100% wrong and it was purely because you did not bother to read the very text that you criticized me for not reading. Are you getting the picture?
That passage in Matthew does not say that the guards or the chief priest believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
I see you've now bothered to read it and you've caught up to the conversation. I've been waiting.
So yes it was because I worded it wrong and yes I did, and have read many times, all four gospel accounts of the resurrection story.
No, no, no, you didn't word it wrong. Your understanding of the resurrection story was wrong because you hadn't bothered to read it lately. You said there was an earthquake, the guards looked in the tomb and saw it was empty, and then reported this to the pharisees. You were quite clear that nothing supernatural happened, and this is why you kept claiming that a second investigation would be moronic. It was not just wording it wrong.
I was the one wording things wrong when I kept insisting that there needed to be an investigation after Easter Sunday. I tacitly assumed that travel took a while in those days, but in any event there needed to be a second visit to the tomb to investigate the supernatural claims by the guards. Because it is quite clear that the pharisees were not interested in something fortunate happening to Jesus, so if they are told that the most fortunate thing imaginable happened to him but the explanation isn't rational, then I am rational in saying that they would want to investigate it.
So what you need to do is convey to me that you understand there should have been a second investigation. If you don't understand this, then what I've said has gone over your head. We can get into the details of whether or not there was an unrecorded investigation later, but right now it's on you to understand that a second investigation would be rational, not moronic.
So even though he states in post#302 that “it doesn't matter if the investigation occurs after Easter Sunday or on it.” he has made it quite clear in multiple posts that it does matter when the investigation was performed. He makes it quite clear that the investigation on Easter Sunday does not answer his question posted on the OP.
Once again, this investigation would not be satisfactory because it says that supernatural events took place. Why not maybe just go take a second look? You know, in case the guards are lying, incompetent, under the influence, or some combination thereof?
This is the circle that jason_delisle mentions in post#304. On the one hand he continues to chant that “no investigation” took place and then when presented with evidence that shows an investigation did take place he rejects that because it didn’t take place after Easter Sunday; which he says doesn’t really matter anyway. He then jumps back at the start of the circular reasoning and states that no investigation took place.
Actually, if you want to be technical, the guards never did look inside the tomb. The "evidence" you are talking about? Your own claims that the guards looked inside the tomb and saw it was empty. May very well have happened, but I doubt it since they were so terrified of the angel. Also there's this small issue of how Matthew 28 does not mention that they looked inside, but I wouldn't expect you to know about this detail since you skimmed the chapter at best.
It is no wonder he chose his handle which means he rejects all religious and moral principles because he believes that life is meaningless. It is meaningless to him because he is unable to perform basic rational and logical evaluations of the data around him.
Personal attacks? From someone like you? You've chastised me for not reading Matthew 28, when you clearly did not because you are unaware of events that did occur and you fabricate events that did not occur. You claim that certain things go over my head, yet you claim that a "second" investigation of the empty tomb would be moronic. So if we go by the established pattern, it's quite clear that when you say those things about me you're referring to yourself.
If it doesn’t matter when the investigation took place as he states in post#302 then his question has been answered. There was an investigation.
Where? When? Show me the verse.
See what I did there - it's a cheap tactic to make you read Matthew 28. I have to stoop that low just to get you to read it.
But, as you suggest, because the chief priest didn’t call in the forensic scientists then his argument must be the investigation performed by the guards posted at the sepulcher is null and void.
Forensic scientists. So hilarious. Yes, because back then no one was qualified to look at blood and be able to tell if a bloody body was dragged along the floor or if there are bloody footprints of bare feet.
[HitchSlap and I] have different views for the definition of miracle. So what's the point you are trying to make? I fail to see that this has anything to do with my post other than to attempt to derail, yet again, the thread because the OP is based on unsupportable, unverifiable claims, to promote anti-religious dogma.
The OP has unsupportable, unverifiable claims. Like the claim that the guards looked inside the tomb, or the claim that no supernatural event was reported to the pharisees.
Just keep digging deeper...
In conclusion, you summarize by saying that no supernatural event occurred and that the guards looked inside the tomb. I'm not entirely sure if you've been correct about a single detail.
