It’s time for easter and passover, where human blood sacrifices by torture, and the pointless deaths of the first born are celebrated.
Mark Tapscott, of Hillfaith, has a post about an old youtube video he made about how true the silly easter story is. Unsurprisingly, he fails and it isn’t.
Some of his exquisite nonsense “But there were guards, almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.”
and my response:
As usual, Mark fails with his claims. He says this “But there were guards, almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.”
Unsurprisingly, there is nothing that says that guards were “special forces” at all. Mark simply makes this up.
And the bible doesn’t agree with him either:
In the gospel of john, Joseph takes the body to his own tomb. No mention of pilate requiring guards at all. Mary, being there alone, saw no guards and that the stone had be moved.
“Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.”
In the gospel of luke, joseph gets the body and the women saw the tomb and how the body was put in. No guards required by pilate. The women see the stone moved and no guards.
“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in, they did not find the body.[a] 4 While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5 The women[b] were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men[c] said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.[d] 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” 8 Then they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.[e]”
In the gospel of mark, joseph asks for the body, and pilate has to check with a centurion to see if jesus is dead. Joseph has to remove the body from the cross himself and no guards are required by pilate. The women saw the tomb and the body. They see the stone already removed and no guards.
In gospel of matthew is when everything is added, and contradicts the rest. Joseph gets the body, no questions asked by pilate. The women are sitting near the tomb and leave at some point since they need to return. The day after the burial, the priests request a guard from pilate. That’s where Mark gets some of his nonsense, from strong’s concordance:
“Word: koustwdiaPronounce: koos-to-dee’-ahStrongs Number: G2892Orig: of Latin origin; “custody”, i.e. a Roman sentry:–watch.Use: Noun Feminine Heb Strong:
1) guard: used of Roman soldiers guarding the sepulchre of Christ
A Roman guard was made up of four to sixteen solders. In combat, they would form a square, and were able to hold off a much larger force.”
It’s rather unlikely it was “almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.” Pilate tells the priests to use their own assigned guards for the temple from the jerusalem garrison. No reason why “SEALS” would be part of a garrison. There is also the point that Pilate never had a legion in Jerusalem, and the first time a full legion was recorded there was for the destruction in late 60-70s CE. He had a handful of cohorts of auxilliaries and it seems more were stationed at Caesaria than Jerusalem.
so these verse don’t match what Mark tries to claim. The women return, the stone isn’t moved, and the guards are mentioned.
“62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard[t] of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.”[u] 66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.”
28 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.”
and then:
“11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 After the priests[c] had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 telling them, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day.”
Romans guards would never report to the priests. This conspiracy makes no sense.
Nothing more than the usual contradictions.
Addendenum 4/11/25: Mark tries to refute my points. It’s quite funny how christians try to make false claims in a written medium.
You can find his reply and my response down in the comments, here.
Club Schadenfreude 
I find this interesting, because you seem to think that the Christian world hasn’t responded to the findings of Biblical studies. Christians know the Gospels are fabrications based on a general oral tradition of what Jesus was like. The fabrication of the Gospels is no problem at all for Christianity. It is childish to keep pointing to contradictions as if they are something new. The internet has been around for a while, and we all know about the contradictions. The question is, “Do you know how irrelevant those contradictions are to the truth of the Christian proclamation about Christ?”
LikeLike
If the Christian gospels are “fabrications based on a general oral tradition” then how on earth do you know what Jesus said or did, and why would you choose to worship him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We don’t know what Jesus said or did. We don’t need to know those things. We have good evidence that he existed, that his life vaguely resembled what the Gospels say about his character, that he was crucified, and that his disciples believed that he rose from the dead. When you read the Old Testament, which is also not presumed to be historically accurate in any of its details, you see a continuity between the sacrificial system then, and Christ’s atoning death in the New Covenant. You don’t just decide to worship Jesus overnight, you have to think about it. You have to think about everything the Bible teaches, and decide if you believe he is the Messiah. I believe he is.
LikeLike
There is very little evidence for Jesus’s existence, let alone the specifics. So I wouldn’t want to base my life on something which I don’t know anything about and whos scriptures are riddled with known errors – it’s a bit like deciding to worship Harry Potter based on the books. But hey, you do you.
LikeLike
it’s exactly like deciding to worship harry potter based on the books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ROFL. So when a christian claims that they have evidence jesus existed, but they don’t know what he said or did, they completely contradict themselves.
You have no idea what his life was like, all you have are baseless stories, claims with nothing to support them. There is no evidence showign that a magical being existed, no evidence showing any of the supposed events in his life happened.
The handwaving here is hilarious. If the OT is just as much BS, then there is no “continuity” between things that never happened.
Many people are taught to believe this nonsense as children, and they misplace trust in their parents/guardians into this religion. That means that many, includign you, don’t think about this religion at all. Your claims are ridiculous, no more than “I like it so I believe in it” since you admit you have nothing to support that this character exists at all.
Like all christians, you have made up your own version of this religion. I’m sure you ignore the parts you don’t like and make jesus into your own image.
LikeLike
Put this argument in any other context and see how silly it looks.
I believe the moon is made of cheese. I know, hell everybody knows, there are contradictions to believing the moon is made of cheese. But, since I’ve really given it some thought, I do firmly believe the moon is made of cheese.
That is how you look from this side of the fence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Considering how many christians believe the bible, including the gospels are “history” and take them literally, your claims are not true.
The fabrication of the bible is a major problem for christianity, since the many versions can’t agree on what their supposed “truth” is.
Unsurprisngly, the contradictions aren’t “irrelevant” since they show that this jesus is very unlikely to have existed, since the claims about him do not match. You have no truth, just dozens, if not far far more, versions of this religion.
Christians do not agree on:
Free will vs predestination
who is saved
how someone is saved
what baptism does and how to do it
what heaven and hell are
how to intepret the bible
what morals their god wants
what their god considers to be a “sin”
and that’s just for starters. There is no “truth of the christian proclamation of christ”. Add that to the fact that not one self-professed christian can do what their jesus promises in their bible, and there is no reason to believe any of you.
LikeLike
A couple of months ago we started getting in France the American murder channel. It’s called ID and in a way it’s also a celebration of people being killed 😀
LikeLike
Yep, that it is. The fascination with “true crime” aka mostly murders baffles me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s poor Mark’s response:
HillFaith founder and editor Mark Tapscott, who is the host of the video being critiqued by Velkyn1, responds:
Thank you, Velkyn1, for taking the time to compose such a detailed, 1,200+ word critique of my comments about the Roman guard placed at the tomb of Jesus Christ. I offer two points in response:
First, you point out, accurately, that I say this in the video that prompted your comments: “But there were guards, almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.”
You then argue that “unsurprisingly, there is nothing that says that guards were ‘special forces’ at all. Mark simply makes this up.” But here’s how you misrepresent my words, Velkyn1.
I did not say, as you claim, “that the guards were ‘special forces.” What I said was the guard unit was a Kustodia, which is the Greek word used by Matthew at verse 27:65 for a “guard” or a “watch.” I then observed that this unit was “an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators … like the Navy Seals.”
In other words, I used an analogy to a present-day term familiar to most readers to communicate the unique nature of a Roman guard unit. I did not argue, as you contend, that the ancient Roman unit was exactly the same as the contemporary unit of the U.S. military.
Did my analogy misrepresent the Roman guard unit? In the classic “More Than a Carpenter,” Josh and Sean McDowell observe, while quoting “The Military Discipline of the Romans” by George Currie, that:
“A Roman guard of strictly disciplined men was stationed to watch the tomb. Fear of punishment among these men ‘produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.’”
So, what you have done here, Velkyn1, is create a straw man — misleading readers to conclude that I meant an exact comparison when in fact I clearly intended an analogy. You then attached to your straw man a further fallacy, namely the ad hominem accusation that I made the whole thing up out of cloth.
Bottom line on my first point here then is this: “Kustodia” is the proper Greek term to describe a Roman guard unit in the context in which Matthew used it and, given the well-known hyper-discipline of the Roman Legion in general, my analogy to the present day SFOs like the Navy Seals is illustrative of that fact.
It’s worth noting here as well that the noted Bible scholar A.T. Robertson, in his “Word Pictures of the New Testament” exegetes Pilate’s words as quoted in Matthew 27:65 as follows:
“Make it as sure as you can (aspalisasqe w oidate). ‘Make it secure for yourselves (ingressive aorist middle) as you know how.’ Have a guard (ecete koustwdian), present imperative, a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police. The Latin term koustdia occurs in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of A.D. 22. ‘The curt permission to the Jews whom he despised Is suitable In the mouth of the Roman official’ (McNeile).:”
Second, Velkyn1, you spend the vast majority of your 1,200+ word disquisition emphasizing the differences in details among the four Gospels in their description of the tomb prior to the Resurrection and in the immediate aftermath of it.
Most prominent of these differences, you emphasize at great length the fact Matthew mentions the Kustodia, while the other three Gospels do not. You then argue that “In [the] gospel of matthew is when everything is added, and contradicts the rest.”
Your assumptions here are typical of the Fallacy of Silence, that is, arguing that because every example in a group of examples doesn’t include the exact same details, at least one of the examples must therefore be inaccurate.
Steven Lewis of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary explains the Fallacy of Silence:
“Similar to the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance, the argument from silence is a fallacy of weak induction that treats the absence of evidence as evidence itself. This logical fallacy essentially takes an appeal to authority and flips it around.
“The appeal to authority says that because an authority A says x, then x must be true; the argument from silence says that because an authority A didn’t say x, then x must be false. In effect, the silence of the authority regarding some particular claim is taken as evidence against the claim itself.”
The Fallacy of Silence is frequently seen in discussions of historical issues. What you have done here, Velkyn1, is like arguing that, because Thomas Jefferson never wrote anything about Sally Hemings, he could not then have had a long-running sexual relationship with his slave of that name.
and what I wrote back:
It’s so sweet when a Christian answers me, and then goes out of his way to show just how much of a failure he is. Oh noes, there are spelling and grammatical mistakes. He still can’t show his imaginary friend exists. It’s even more amusing that I don’t interact with Instagram (what I assume he means by “Instapundit”) much at all.
“Editor’s Note to Readers: The following exchange first appeared in the comment section of HillFaith’s YouTube Channel regarding the short video “What is a Kustodia.” Velkyn1 is a familiar critic of this editor’s writing elsewhere regarding spiritual issues, particularly when they appear on Instapundit. His comments appear below in bold red italic, while mine are presented in bold blue in order to avoid any confusion.
Velkyn1’s comment is reproduced here exactly as it appears on YouTube. I made no changes to the content, punctuation, spelling or other details. I suggest readers give Velkyn1 a pass in these regards, as he was likely far more concerned about the content of his reply than its grammatical correctness. — Mark Tapscott”
It’s great how he starts out with trying to whine about the length of my post. Alas, it’s easy to lie with few words, and takes more effort to reveal those lies.
“HillFaith founder and editor Mark Tapscott, who is the host of the video being critiqued by Velkyn1, responds: Thank you, Velkyn1, for taking the time to compose such a detailed, 1,200+ word critique of my comments about the Roman guard placed at the tomb of Jesus Christ. I offer two points in response: “First, you point out, accurately, that I say this in the video that prompted your comments: “But there were guards, almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.” You then argue that “unsurprisingly, there is nothing that says that guards were ‘special forces’ at all. Mark simply makes this up.” But here’s how you misrepresent my words, Velkyn1.”
It’s hilarious how he says I am accurate in what I copied from his blog, and then he claims that he doesn’t claim that the guards were “special forces”. He literally does this: “But there were guards, almost certainly a dozen members of the Roman Legion present at the tomb, and they formed a unit, a Kustodia, that was an ancient equivalent of today’s Special Forces Operators like the Navy Seals.””
This is not an analogy, it is a claim. It’s great how dishonest Mark can be. “In other words, I used an analogy to a present-day term familiar to most readers to communicate the unique nature of a Roman guard unit. I did not argue, as you contend, that the ancient Roman unit was exactly the same as the contemporary unit of the U.S. military.”
You tried to retcon your claim, Mark. You evidently have no idea what an analogy even is. You literally claimed that the guards at the tomb were kustodia and the kustodia was the equivalent of special forces. You did literally claim they ere equivalent. Equivalent means: 1: equal in force, amount, or value also : equal in area or volume but not superposable 2 a: like in signification or import b: having logical equivalence 3: corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function”
That you repeat a failed lie from the McDowells is nothing surprising. They make baseless claims too, just like you. The bible also disproves all of this since these supposed “flawless attention to duty” never happens, but the guards collude with the priests.
So, no strawman at all, but nice lies, Mark. You literally made a direct comparison. And you did make up your nonsense out of whole cloth. The bottom line is you make false claims about your bible and its stories. Now you try to claim that the entire roman army is “special forces” which I also know is complete garbage.
Unsuprisngly, Robertson is just another “bible scholar”, and “exegesis” is simply an opinion. Pilate literally says, “you have guards, go secure the tomb”. So this attempt to claim that some elite unit was sent is baseless.
Why, yes, dear, I did show how that all of this story is complete nonsense, including the guard bit, since the guards strangely do not appear in the other stories. The author of matthew adds them. In the other three, no guards are to be found at all. They literally do not exist in the scene in three of the four gospels. So, yep, the gospel of matthew does indeed contradict the rest.
There is no fallacy of silence used here, but it’s a common claim from a Christian. Let’s look at what an argument from silence is:
“to make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author’s available writings.[3] Thus, in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.[4] While most historical approaches rely on what an author’s works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.[4] This approach thus uses what an author “should have said” rather than what is available in the author’s extant writings.[4][5]
An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.” – argument from silence, Wikipedia.
There is no reason that christians can offer that explains why literally no other mention is made about the supposed tomb guards. Every author should have known about how the guards fainted, but they didn’t. They didn’t know they were even there.
As the wiki article indicates, things are expected to be mentioned when the author had the information, that it was to tell the supposedly more important story in the world, and it was important and interesting enough to relate. The author of matthew found it so, you need to explain why the rest didn’t?
The author of matthew repeatedly adds things to make this jesus character more impressive. We have the guards supposedly fainting, these “special forces” of yours. We have dead jews wandering around Jerusalem during a Passover, and curiously no one else mentions that either, a vastly impressive miracles if it happened.
So, no logical fallacy, and you fail again. Your attempt at an actual analogy, regarding Thomas Jefferson, fails since the Wikipedia article shows how an appeal to silence works. “An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, *was intending to give a complete account of the situation*, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time”
LikeLike
The irony of this whole “Roman guards” thing is that it’s vanishingly unlikely that there ever was a tomb. Crucifixion victims generally got left up to rot. There are very few reports of anyone being “rescued.” (There’s one account in Josephus where he asked for three of his friends to be taken down, and his request was honoured because he had connections.)
So my take on it is that there were no Roman guards at the tomb because there was no tomb to begin with.
LikeLiked by 3 people
yep. curious how the Christians managed to lose the most special location in their religion.
LikeLike
When the ship is sinking, double down!
Can’t say I’ve heard the argument from long prose before lol.
When all you do is make shit up, then make that made up belief a core of your belief system, there’s naught to do when confronted about your make believe shit, but make more shit up, or double down.
Ask Felonious Orange. He uses the same playbook.
LikeLiked by 1 person