Post your Easter Challenge Solution here

[kwlyon]

"You want a half hour back? Try the roughly 60 hours or more I have invested already with no end in sight, and then I will empathize with you. I really wish I could dedicate all my time to this study, but that is not possible."

Well, if you weren't going to provide me with substance...at least you provided a laugh. Thanks for that.

"exegesis and hermeneutics"

FYI, I know what these words mean...and I am not impressed with your "training". Has anyone ever read the flame mail on stardestroyer.net? Sometimes this forum reminds me of these exchanges...

[Savonarola]

"exegesis and hermeneutics"

FYI, I know what these words mean...and I am not impressed with your "training".

Sadly, I had this pegged months ago. From an email exchange, these from October:

> I am dumbfounded that a serious Bible student like
> yourself could have missed all the details in the
> passages. They leap off the pages for me.

Sorry, but I just can't take that statement seriously. Both on [mutual friend]'s facebook page and in these emails, you have made multiple references to something that you alleged Darrel or I said, but that -- in fact -- neither one of us even implied. I can't speak for Darrel, but I know that you attributed positions to me that I not only never endorsed but also reject outright.

That is to say, you seem to find "details" where no such details exist. If you are elucidating these "details" using "intuition," then your intuition is broken because it is giving you false information. I do not think that science has disproved God, but you said (twice) that I do. You said that Darrel explained that what makes freethinkers be freethinkers is a belief that they are free from any responsibility to God, but he didn't say that (nor is that a valid description of freethinkers). You (claim to) think that humor and creativity are foreign to freethinkers, but George Carlin and Mark Twain (and many, many more funny and creative people) were freethinkers. You described my refusal to put up with your laziness as "intolerance" as if I do not feel that you ought to be allowed to hold your beliefs, but this is not true, either. You said that Darrel said that there are multiple definitions of "freethinker," but he in fact said the opposite: that although there are different ways to express what the word means, there is but one meaning. (In fact, you said Merriam-Webster hyphenates "freethinker," and it doesn't.) (And this definition issue stems, of course, from my statement that the word "has a definition," which is nothing like saying that there is only one way to explain its meaning, yet you spent significant effort arguing that that's what I insisted.)

Strange for someone claiming to have superior attention to detail, don't you think?

and two days later

> I do not expect you to understand since you haven't been trained
> in it.

Of course you don't. You claim to have a monopoly on the correct interpretation of scripture. This is simply absurd. You haven't told either Darrel or me anything about "inductive Bible study." It sounds more like a creative way to say "finding stuff in the Bible that isn't actually there." You seem to be very good at finding stuff in writing that isn't there, but you can't seem to address the fact that I've given example after example after example of where you've been terribly, terribly wrong in doing so.

[SteveMc]

FYI, I wanted to update you on the vague "Monday or Tuesday" time frame I gave for my response to Kesler.

I am estimating 8-12 hours for what I want to cover on the passage in question which will include my specific response to Kesler, but expand on the issues considerably. It won't be an exhaustive study, but should cover much of what I find very significant. It is a great passage to study, and the NRSV rendering is a great example of what can happen because of the difficulties of going from Greek to English, and why you never want to do Bible study from just one English version. So my thanks go to Kesler for his choice of versions.

I do not have to teach Wednesday night so that clears my plate for now to study this. So my plan is to post late Tuesday, hopefully no later than 10.

Time for another apology and helping of humble pie as well.

I think I have inadvertently given the impression that I favor or endorse the NIV. For the record, the NIV isn’t even close to being my favorite version for many of the same reasons you have posted. I use it a lot only because many churches changed over to it from the KJV. If I come across a passage that I feel was interpreted erroneously I point it out, explain why it seems to be incorrect or misleading, give the rendering from a version I feel is more reliable, and then move on. I do the same thing in ANY version I preach or teach from.

So I realized that I should not have blown off Darrel's comment about the Nineveh passage in the NIV, but should have used it as a valid complaint that needs to be addressed...but not now. Matthew is front and center.

Steve

[SteveMc]

I have been able to do better on my study time since Sunday than I anticipated, despite blowing the timing belt in my Camry last night, and coming down with a severe cold. I am really excited about the post for tomorrow night and realistically feel I can get a total of 12 hours of study time in on Matthew 27:55-28:5. I think that will give you something to chew on for a little while. Thanks so much for prodding me on in this!

Steve

[kwlyon]

Tantric posting? It's coming....oh! oh! ALMOST THERE!!!!!!!

Just pokin' fun at you guys. But seriously this better be interesting or I will absolutely pop a gasket.

[Dardedar]

I've never seen this many previews before for a movie before.

[SteveMc]

Ah, Darrel, you have figured out that there IS a reason for movie trailers...I just want to be sure I have as big an audience as I can get for opening day. And by the way, you have arranged for a much larger venue than Walton...Oh, and I'm not worried about the critics. The author of The Help submitted her story 60 times before it was accepted on the 61st attempt. The rest is history. I can be patient.

kwlyon and Sav, the issue isn't knowing what the words mean. A sixth grader could figure that out. The issue is knowing how to DO what they mean.

But back to the books. I sure don't want to delay the opening curtain...

Steve

[Dardedar]

Oh, and I'm not worried about the critics."

Obviously I can't respond to what you keep promising to do some time in the future, but I can point out what careful readers have no doubt noticed about your consistent behavior thus far. That is, you avoid responding to questions asked and asked again and then asked again, and you consistently avoid responding directly to points made in response to your assertions.

This is intellectual cowardice.

I never run from answering questions directly, because I am not afraid of discovering some truth that contradicts a pet belief.

If you wish to ask questions and have them answered, if you wish to have your points responded to directly, and I assume you do, then you need to begin participation in this dialogue by doing likewise. This is not an unreasonable request. In this regard you have fallen down on the job, consistently, from the very beginning.

D.
------------------
ps. I am quite pleased that SAV has included into the record some of the Facebook exchange from months ago. It reveals what we will probably be seeing more of in the future: Steve's consistent deficit in the area of accurately discerning and reporting what the other party has said (to an astonishing degree). And beyond that, whole cloth fabrication of what the other party has said. Now the record of this will be nicely contained in this thread.

[SteveMc]

Kesler
"If you just read Matthew's resurrection account, would there be any reason to conjecture that the women didn't see the angel roll away the stone? I think not. Look back at Mathew's whole account leading up to Easter:

Matthew 27:55, 59-61; 28:1-5 (NRSV)
55 Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee... 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. 28:1 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. 5 But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.

"Matthew clearly says that the two Marys were witnesses to the crucifixion (they knew Jesus was actually dead) and burial (they wouldn't go to the wrong tomb) of Jesus, and in verse five the angel speaks directly to the women, so what good reason is there to suppose that according to Matthew's gospel, the women weren't witnesses to the stone being rolled away by the angel as well? Why make explicit that the women saw where Jesus was buried and knew exactly which tomb was his, but then have them miss the actual removal of the stone, especially since Matthew's stolen-body claim of the Jews (28:1-15), according to apologists, proves that the body was missing? If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed? After all, this is what John claims Mary Magdalene assumed when she encounterd the empty tomb (John 20:1-2; 13-15)."

Here is the sequence of events according to Matthew 27:55-66 in the NRSV:
1. The women observe the crucifixion “from a distance”. Matt 27:55
2. Evening approached (NRSV follows erroneous NIV translation) vs 57. Nestle/Aland 27 Gk: the double verb is a participle/aorist tense combination-literally “evening having come”. But don’t take my word for it, that’s just how the KJV, NKJV, RSV, Darby, YLT, GLT, NASB, ESV, ASV, and Amplified Bible translators rendered it. It is an interesting fact that prior to the erroneous NIV translation, not one major translation that I am aware of failed to express the literal verb sense.
3. Joseph goes to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. vs 58a
4. Pilate gives the order to release the body to Joseph. vs 58b
5. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean linen cloth, vs 59
6. The body is placed in Joseph’s tomb, the stone rolled in place, and Joseph leaves. vs 60
7. The two Marys are sitting outside the tomb opposite it. vs 61
8. The next day, Saturday, the chief priests and Pharisees approach Pilate. vs 62
9. The group restates Jesus’ claim to rise after three days before Pilate. vs 63
10. They request a guard to be posted until the third day. vs 64 The time frame for the posting of the guard is from an indefinite time on Saturday to an indefinite time on Sunday.
11. Pilate gives the command, but leaves the details to them. vs 66
12. The priests and Pharisees post the guard and seal the tomb with an unspecified seal, either a Roman government or Jewish High Priest/Temple seal. vs 66 It should be noted that since the posting of the Roman guard is found only in Matthew, by virtue of what is clearly stated, it happens completely without the knowledge of the women. They are resting at home on the Sabbath. There is no indication in any of the accounts that any of the disciples knew about the Roman guard outside of learning of it well after the events of the resurrection were over. Not once did the women mention the soldiers. There is no interaction between them indicated. The women talk during the trip asking themselves who they can get to move the stone. If the women had known the guard was posted it is unlikely they would have gone to seek entrance in the middle of the night. They would know that with the tomb sealed the guards could not, or would not break the seal to grant them admission.

Does it make sense that the exhausted Jewish women were completely unfazed by the appearance of a brilliant angel descending from heaven, rolling the stone away while the ground shook and the Roman soldiers trembled violently and passed out?

John states that Mary came to the tomb on the first trip and found the stone rolled away with no mention of either the angel or the soldiers. The soldiers had apparently come back to consciousness before the women arrive and are gone, and the angel was no longer visible, quite consistent with other angelic manifestations in scripture. Mary looked in and saw the tomb empty. It is completely logical that she would assume the body had been taken as John says she did. She had seen the body placed in the sepulcher, and had seen the stone rolled across the entrance. So she/they ran to the disciples, but instead of declaring he had risen as he had repeatedly told them, Mary declares someone had taken the body. This prompts Peter and John to run to the tomb to investigate. At least both of the Marys (perhaps other women) follow the two men back to the tomb, for John 20:10-11 depicts Mary Magdalene standing outside the tomb weeping after Peter and John return home. Then the angel appears to Mary. It is without question that up until the angel makes the announcement and Jesus actually appeared to the women, none of the disciples, including the women, believed he would rise from the dead, a fact driven home by the realization that by making the trip to the tomb on the third day with burial spices, the women had no hope.

Kesler asks three questions:
1. “Is there any reason to conjecture that the women didn’t see the angel roll away the stone?” and then I believe restates it “…so what good reason is there to suppose that according to Matthew's gospel, the women weren't witnesses to the stone being rolled away by the angel as well?”

2. “Why make explicit that the women saw where Jesus was buried and knew exactly which tomb was his, but then have them miss the actual removal of the stone, especially since Matthew's stolen-body claim of the Jews (28:1-15), according to apologists, proves that the body was missing?”

3. “If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed?”

Let me start by addressing the last two questions.
In response to #2. You are a Roman soldier. You are assigned to guard a grave from being opened by the disciples of Jesus who are anticipated to steal the body so as to fake his resurrection. A brilliant angel appears, descending from heaven, and the ground shakes as the stone is rolled away from the tomb where the angel sits on the stone. The whole experience is so overwhelming that the soldiers are overcome with fear and pass out. Eventually the soldiers come to, the angel is gone and the tomb stands open. Your only hope at that point is that the body is still in the tomb. What is the first thing you would do? Look in the tomb, but they find it empty. The squad is under the authority of a Roman officer, quite possibly the centurion who was in charge at the crucifixion and was later summoned to Pilate to confirm that Jesus was dead. The soldiers would do whatever the officer told them to do at this point (Mt 8:9). The seal is broken, the body is gone, and a rampaging angel with unbelievable power that can even cause an earthquake may still be in the vicinity. What sense does it make to stay at the site? If your forces are overrun by a more powerful foe, you have not abandoned your post. If you cannot fight because you are unconscious you have not failed in your duty. The officer is under the authority of the high priests since Pilate put them under their charge. So they go to the religious officials to report what happened and plead for mercy. The priests make up the only story they can come up with so they don’t have to mention anything about the angel. The soldiers do what they are told hoping this will all pass without them being killed.

The women came expecting to find the stone rolled up to a tomb with a body in it, not a Roman guard standing watch. But the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty, and the Roman guard was nowhere in sight. Matthew makes their awareness of the location explicitly clear so as to prove they knew where to go. He makes it explicitly clear that the angel rolled the stone away, not the soldiers or anyone else including the women. He makes it explicitly clear that the whole experience was so terrifying that seasoned Roman soldiers passed out, as would have happened to the women if they had been there.

In response to #3. I am really sorry, but this question as stated doesn’t make sense. Could you rephrase it?

But now to answer Kesler’s primary question:
“Is there any reason to conjecture that the women didn’t see the angel roll away the stone?” The answer is “Yes.” for several good reasons found in the texts of the gospel accounts.
A. In none of the four accounts is it ever stated that the women saw the angel roll away the stone. In fact, the incident is only mentioned in Matthew. John specifically states there were two trips to the tomb. The stone was rolled away before they arrived the first time, and the angel appeared to them on the second trip to the grave.
B. If the women did not see the angel roll the stone away from the tomb, who did see it happen that it could be included in the gospel of Matthew? The soldiers. Any one of them, or several of them could have shared the truth later on when the gospel was written by Matthew.
C. There is no interaction between the soldiers and the women at all indicating their presence during the event. (added 2.1.12, I forgot to include this in the original posting) The soldiers would certainly have posted sentries out away from the tomb to intercept anyone approaching, at least on the main access to the garden cemetery. Any posted guard would have easily detected the women, talking among themselves, carrying the spices, and foot lamps or torches to find their way in the dark as John specified it was, long before they reached the tomb area.
D. After the women leave the tomb the first time they declare that the body was taken, not risen as the angel announced. The angelic experience of Matt 28 takes place on their second visit to the tomb in agreement with the other accounts.

[SteveMc]

Hello? Is anyone there? The silence is deafening. I don't even hear any of the laughing you mentioned kwlyon. It has been nearly 48 hours. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote.

By the way, K, I always appreciate constructive criticism as it helps me hone my exegetical and hermeneutic skills. But random vague statements aren't much help to me.

So, my turn to start asking questions. You aren't impressed with my training. Okay, fair enough.

This is directed to all of you, my helpful critics. Please respond to the following questions, all of them:
1. What were the classes I took in school?
2. What were the names of my instructors and their qualification levels? Specifically, in what way were their training methods deficient?
3. What were the texts used in my classes, and what were the names of the authors and their credentials? Specifically, in what way were their training methods deficient?
4. What were my grades in those classes, and did my instructors also find my training to be insufficient?
5. What qualifies you to sit in judgment on whether my skills are sufficient to perform biblical exegesis and hermeneutical analysis at the level which I pursue such study?

[Doug]

In response to #2. You are a Roman soldier. You are assigned to guard a grave from being opened by the disciples of Jesus who are anticipated to steal the body so as to fake his resurrection.

Too late. The guards were not posted until one night had already passed. So much for making sure the body wasn't stolen...

Matthew 27:
57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
The Guard at the Tomb
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”
65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

[Dardedar]

Oh lookie. Steve would like to make points, ask questions and have people take time to respond to them. I figured that was going to happen. Trouble is, Steve has been avoiding when others take the time to make points in response to his and he has been studiously avoiding responding to questions for months. But look at this, or should I say "kai idou," (and, behold!), when he doesn't get prompt on the dot service for his assertions and questions, he counts the hours and pronounces the silence "deafening." I guess he is oblivious to the fact that his silence in response to my questions, which were asked and asked again, and underlined and asked again, has been deafening.

I had a health relative with a issue and had to rearrange my schedule and drive them to Little Rock yesterday. Last night the sewer pipe to our septic tank stopped up so I've been dealing with that a bit. Once I've got that material cleaned out, and Steve shows he has the testicular fortitude to deal with questions presented to him weeks ago, I'll be glad to deal with the material Steve has provided. Unfortunately, his material isn't all that different from what I was dealing with last night. Also, I have several exchanges going on three other forums. And this is with people that actually respond to points and interact. This stuff with Steve has been bumped to last priority. I hate intellectual cowardice and find it exceedingly boring.

I will however answer his new 1-5 questions:

1. What were the classes I took in school?
2. What were the names of my instructors and their qualification levels? Specifically, in what way were their training methods deficient?
3. What were the texts used in my classes, and what were the names of the authors and their credentials? Specifically, in what way were their training methods deficient?
4. What were my grades in those classes, and did my instructors also find my training to be insufficient?
5. What qualifies you to sit in judgment on whether my skills are sufficient to perform biblical exegesis and hermeneutical analysis at the level which I pursue such study?

1 through 4 = Don't know, don't care.

5. You've already admitted you don't have a student level understanding of Greek, so reasonable people interested in understanding the truth of the matter with regard to Greek translation will want to look to those with expert training and knowledge, rather than a neophyte with a fundie agenda like you.

The weight of your arguments regarding straightforward matters (most of these Easter problems are quite straightforward) will stand or fall on their own based upon how they stand up to skeptical scrutiny (which you will try to duck and ignore by avoiding dealing with questions and points). When you get out in the weeds of Koine Greek translation, your assertions need the backing of solid scholarship because of these two main reasons:

1) you don't have a student level understanding of the language
2) You are a fundie on a mission from God trying to shill for an inerrant version of these Easter stories

Put another way with a little less sugar:

1) you don't have a clue
2) you can't be trusted to present accurate scholarship

Off to work.

[SteveMc]

Darrel, I know exactly what you mean about stuff happening in life that absolutely has to take top priority. Now you understand what has delayed my responses. You have my empathy and my apology. You have conditioned me with your nearly immediate responses in the past, and I was under the assumption that others on your membership might chip in their comments as well like Doug just did, or at least Kesler since I was responding to him. My mistake. I make so many of them...

I am not in a rush. I have lots of time to wait. In fact, I need a breather myself, so take your time. Headed to Pottsville tonight to watch my daughter play basketball.

Hey, Doug, thanks! You know, it is somehow hard to imagine, that with the possibility that the soldiers including their commanding officer could be killed if the tomb was unsealed and it was empty, that the chief priests and Pharisees could have a full scale riot by the people who held him to be a legitimate prophet, or that Pilate could suffer to lose his position out of the fiasco, that nobody would have thought to take a peek in that tomb before they sealed it up. If I was a betting man, which I'm not, I would put all my money on the bet that they checked.

But thanks for the creative input!

Steve

[Dardedar]

...I was under the assumption that others on your membership might chip in their comments as well like Doug just did, or at least Kesler since I was responding to him.

I sent a note to Farrell Till's errancy list mentioning this exchange again and J. Kesler responded thus:

>DAR
> I still have this exchange with the Ozark preacher going on over at our freethinker forum... I have to take a trip tomorrow so I won't be able to tackle it for a day or two. Perhaps of interest to those who are into the Easter mess..."

KESLER
Go for it, DAR; I don't want to devote the time. This sentence pretty much sums up the preacher's approach (my emphasis): "The angelic experience of Matt 28 takes place on their second visit to the tomb in agreement with the other accounts." I clearly stated that I was only considering the Easter account according to what Matthew wrote. I said, "If you just read Matthew's resurrection account, would there be any reason to conjecture that the women didn't see the angel roll away the stone? I think not." Like most inerrantists, he tried to conflate each gospel account into one, while smoothing over the inconsistencies. I'm also not sure what he thinks is so unclear about my third question.

John Kesler

As I have posted earlier in this thread, if Steve wants to focus on and start with the problem of making Matthews version fit with the others, he is going to have to deal head on with the problems laid out in our tract here:

The Mary Magdalene Problem.

ps. Be careful to avoid the fallacy of begging the question. That is, assuming that which you are trying to establish.

[SteveMc]

Hey, Darrel. I appreciate your care of your relative, and the cost to drive from Fayetteville to LR and back. I don't have much, three of us are living off my meager earnings while my wife is a full time student, but I want to send you ten bucks toward your gas. Where do I send it? No tracts will be included, no scripture passages, just the money.

[SteveMc]

Kesler, here is the last paragraph of your post that prompted my response:
"Matthew clearly says that the two Marys were witnesses to the crucifixion (they knew Jesus was actually dead) and burial (they wouldn't go to the wrong tomb) of Jesus, and in verse five the angel speaks directly to the women, so what good reason is there to suppose that according to Matthew's gospel, the women weren't witnesses to the stone being rolled away by the angel as well? Why make explicit that the women saw where Jesus was buried and knew exactly which tomb was his, but then have them miss the actual removal of the stone, especially since Matthew's stolen-body claim of the Jews (28:1-15), according to apologists, proves that the body was missing? If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed? After all, this is what John claims Mary Magdalene assumed when she encounterd the empty tomb (John 20:1-2; 13-15)."

Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or professor with fluent training and expertise in Greek to see that YOU brought up the account in the Gospel of John. In order for me to respond to your post I am required by the principles of exegesis and hermeneutics to study the account in John. It is NEVER enough to simply look at the verse(s) themselves, they must be studied in their contexts. The gospel accounts cannot be considered or interpreted apart from one another since they describe the same events, drawing from the same resource well.

So it was impossible for me to answer your post without looking at all the texts YOU posted.

It would help me to know your biblical exegetical/hermeneutic training as well as Darrel and Till. Darrel has already stated he has none nor wants any. I can't find any evidence that Till has any either, and Darrel has asked me not to bother Till who is ill. I have honored Darrel's request. Where did you attend seminary, what years, who were your professors, and what classes did you successfully complete?

Steve McCormick

[SteveMc]

Doug, I wanted to mention that if you had been there back in the day, those priests, Pharisees, and soldiers really could have used your suggestion. You could have saved those priests a pile of cash. I wonder how much it took to bribe a squad of Roman soldiers to use an incredibly shallow story to cover up what happened knowing the possible result. And all any of them had to have done was use the story that the body had been stolen the night before. Imagine that! But that would require imagination, because it didn't happen, and they all knew it didn't happen.

Steve

[SteveMc]

Darrel, I just read through the Mary Magdalene Problem, and I am so grateful you posted this. Otherwise I might have passed over it. I would appreciate it if you could amass most of the freethinker objections to the gospel accounts (and perhaps you have already posted them all) so I can make the most efficient use of my study time. Not that I begrudge it. I absolutely love to do it, but like you, life gets in the way sometimes of what we enjoy most.

The tremendously sad irony for me as I read the Problem tract is the realization that if Till had understood even the rudimentary principles of inductive Bible study methodology I doubt seriously that he would ever have forsaken his first love and the call of God on his life, or that I would be reading this tract with his name of authorship.

If the things you have already posted over these past four pages comprise the bulk of your material, just let me know. I appreciate it.

Respectfully,

Steve

[SteveMc]

By the way, Kesler, I am working through my lexical-syntactical analysis of the passage from Matthew. It was to have been included with my previous post, about a third more material than what I posted. But I was not satisfied with it when my self-imposed deadline came. So I withheld it and will post it next, but no time frame guarantee. The more I study, the more I find. The more I find, the more I have to research. The more I research, the more I thank God for those men and women who have gone before me and contributed to my education and knowledge of the Word of God.

So if you just read Matthew 27-28 from one flawed English translation like the NIV or NRSV, as you seem to have done, it would indeed be hard to find a reason why the women did not see the angel roll the stone. But that is one of the very first things they taught us NEVER to do in inductive Bible study, an absolutely foundational principle.

When I am finished I think you will see what I mean.

And to think, this all has come because unbelievers asked me to stand and deliver on the reason for the hope that is within me.

I just had no idea I would need a delivery truck this big...

Steve

[Dardedar]

Okay, let me look at some of Steve's material, starting with his Tuesday post and Kesler's 3 questions. First though, he asks:

Does it make sense that the exhausted Jewish women were completely unfazed by the appearance of a brilliant angel descending from heaven, rolling the stone away while the ground shook and the Roman soldiers trembled violently and passed out?

Steve, we are talking about ancient anonymous stories of the dead getting up and walking around, any pretense of "does it make sense" hardly comes into play here. I am interested in what you can show from the scriptures, not piles of conjecture not supported by scripture.

<BIG SNIP>
Kesler asks three questions:
1. “Is there any reason to conjecture that the women didn’t see the angel roll away the stone?” and then I believe restates it “…so what good reason is there to suppose that according to Matthew's gospel, the women weren't witnesses to the stone being rolled away by the angel as well?”
2. “Why make explicit that the women saw where Jesus was buried and knew exactly which tomb was his, but then have them miss the actual removal of the stone, especially since Matthew's stolen-body claim of the Jews (28:1-15), according to apologists, proves that the body was missing?”
3. “If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed?”

Let me start by addressing the last two questions.
In response to #2. You are a Roman soldier. You are assigned to guard a grave from being opened by the disciples of Jesus who are anticipated to steal the body so as to fake his resurrection. A brilliant angel appears, descending from heaven, and the ground shakes as the stone is rolled away from the tomb where the angel sits on the stone. The whole experience is so overwhelming that the soldiers are overcome with fear and pass out. Eventually the soldiers come to, the angel is gone and the tomb stands open. Your only hope at that point is that the body is still in the tomb. What is the first thing you would do? Look in the tomb, but they find it empty. The squad is under the authority of a Roman officer, quite possibly the centurion who was in charge at the crucifixion and was later summoned to Pilate to confirm that Jesus was dead. The soldiers would do whatever the officer told them to do at this point (Mt 8:9). The seal is broken, the body is gone, and a rampaging angel with unbelievable power that can even cause an earthquake may still be in the vicinity. What sense does it make to stay at the site? If your forces are overrun by a more powerful foe, you have not abandoned your post. If you cannot fight because you are unconscious you have not failed in your duty. The officer is under the authority of the high priests since Pilate put them under their charge. So they go to the religious officials to report what happened and plead for mercy. The priests make up the only story they can come up with so they don’t have to mention anything about the angel. The soldiers do what they are told hoping this will all pass without them being killed.

Maybe it's because I didn't ask question #2, that I don't understand your answer to #2. But it seems that your answer is entirely conjecture, that is, made up. I'm more interested in what you can support, from scripture. Your challenge is to have each gospel account be consistent with itself, while also at the same time consistent with the other accounts. We know categorically that the gospels differ on many different doctrinal issues (example upon request, I wrote a book about this), that these Easter stories have so many discrepancies between them is entirely consistent with this pattern.

The women came expecting to find the stone rolled up to a tomb with a body in it, not a Roman guard standing watch. But the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty, and the Roman guard was nowhere in sight.

No, that is not at all how Matthew's version reads. You're making stuff up.

Matthew 28
1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.
3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.
6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
ASV

STEVE
Matthew makes their awareness of the location explicitly clear so as to prove they knew where to go. He makes it explicitly clear that the angel rolled the stone away, not the soldiers or anyone else including the women. He makes it explicitly clear that the whole experience was so terrifying that seasoned Roman soldiers passed out, as would have happened to the women if they had been there.

Ah, that last bit is made up. You can't just assume the women weren't there (question begging), and a plain reading of Matthew, as per above, has the women there.

In response to #3. I am really sorry, but this question as stated doesn’t make sense. Could you rephrase it?

Kesler isn't interested right now in joining in, but his question seems straightforward enough:

"3. “If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed?”

What part of it is giving you trouble?

But now to answer Kesler’s primary question:
“Is there any reason to conjecture that the women didn’t see the angel roll away the stone?” The answer is “Yes.” for several good reasons found in the texts of the gospel accounts.

We'll need to see those good reasons. You need these gospel accounts to be consistent and accurate independently (because we know they weren't stitched together until many decades or centuries later) and you need them to be consistent together to preserve some semblance of inerrancy for the Bible. You can't just assume it.

A. In none of the four accounts is it ever stated that the women saw the angel roll away the stone. In fact, the incident is only mentioned in Matthew.

Question begging. Whether the women were there is the point in question, and the plain reading of Matthew does just mention "the incident," it has the women there for it.

John specifically states there were two trips to the tomb. The stone was rolled away before they arrived the first time, and the angel appeared to them on the second trip to the grave.

Yep, this introduces a whole host of other problems. I had honestly forgotten what a tangled mess these stories were. It's a rubic's cube. Just when think you have some colors lined up on one side, all of the rest are messed up.

B. If the women did not see the angel roll the stone away from the tomb, who did see it happen that it could be included in the gospel of Matthew? The soldiers. Any one of them, or several of them could have shared the truth later on when the gospel was written by Matthew.

The soldiers were in on writing the gospel? That's very creative but there is no support whatsoever for this.

C. There is no interaction between the soldiers and the women at all indicating their presence during the event. (added 2.1.12, I forgot to include this in the original posting)

Question begging. In Matthew's version, a plain reading of the text has them there for the event.

The soldiers would certainly have posted sentries out away from the tomb to intercept anyone approaching,...

Mere assertion.

...at least on the main access to the garden cemetery. Any posted guard would have easily detected the women, talking among themselves, carrying the spices, and foot lamps or torches to find their way in the dark as John specified it was, long before they reached the tomb area.

You provide no scriptural basis for any of this. Careful readers will note how Steve wants to keep the woman away from the tomb, so he just makes all of this stuff up out of whole cloth.

D. After the women leave the tomb the first time they declare that the body was taken, not risen as the angel announced. The angelic experience of Matt 28 takes place on their second visit to the tomb in agreement with the other accounts.

Question begging. As per Kesler's question #3, your invented time lapse, which is not in Matthew, then presents the problem of the body being stolen. The notion that the Matthew 28 version is a second visit to the tomb, makes no sense of the Matthew version at all.

Why can't an all powerful God, inspiring his most important story, get these basic facts straight?