From: cd079@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank A. Decenso, Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN (Re: Jesus Has Died)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:32:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Charles Board writes...
|> My reply...
|> O.K. Here we go. Let's start taking these one by one. You post your
first 'proof' texts from the gospels showing them to be differing too
much to be 'reliable', and we'll analyze them together - one by one.
 
Huh? I've already granted that differences in *particular* details is not
the problem I have with believing these accounts - it's the accumulated
weight of so *many* differences and so *few* common points. So how is a
detail-by- detail examination of the differences going to address the
issue. If you want to address my point you should start as I suggested
earlier...list the points that *you* think all four accounts *agree* on
(have in common). So far you haven't added anything to the paltry list of
two such items that I come up with.
 
My reply...
You wrote in #29015 -
"look at what points they (the resurrection stories in the four gospels)
have in common:
    1) jesus's tomb was found to be empty
    2) The person who found the tomb to be empty was female (and note
       that I'm being generous here...as Tim has already pointed out they
       differ as to how many females, and who they were)
Period. NOTHING ELSE is in all four gospels."
 
VERY good point. I will concede this, but I'm curious about your follow
up on this point...this in no way destroys the realities expressed
by the different writers. I talked about the differences in reporting a
story before. John was probably well aware of the other accounts when he
wrote his, so it doesn't surprise me that all throughout his gospel, he
records things the other writers didn't.
My main point is that they DO NOT contradict one another, but rather, a
thorough study of the accounts show harmony. Using an average Gospel
Harmony (_A Harmony of the Gospels_, by Thomas and Gundry; or _Baker's
Harmony of the Gospels_, ed. Davies) proves this point. Also, most study
Bibles have a harmony outline.
 
CB...
Wait a minute...let me get this straight.
  a) You grant that three of the accounts do not mention an earthquake
  b) You have pointed to *no* external references (Roman, Jewish, Greek
     or anything else) to an earthquake in Palestine during that time.
  c) You've presented no geological evidence of such an earthquake
 
My reply...
Matthew 28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of
the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from
the door, and sat on it.
 
We need to define what this earthquake was. As you noted, the other
accounts do not mention an earthquake. There is no geological evidence of
damage to the city of Jerusalem. In fact, the women were not at all
detered in coming to the tomb afterwards. But notice what Matthew says...
 
"there was a great eathquake; FOR an angel of the Lord descended from
heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door..."
 
Gleason Archer writes in _Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties_ (pg.348),
"But it was sufficient to break the seal placed over the circular stone
at the time of interment and roll the stone itself away from it's settled
position in the downward slanting groove along which it rolled."
 
I concur with this analysis.
The phrase "great earthquake" is also used in ACTS 16:26 "Suddenly there
was a GREAT EARTHQUAKE, so that the foundations of the prison were
shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains
were loosed."
 
This event harmed no prisoners, but appeared to be confined to the prison
itself. This was a God-induced event, designed for a specific purpose.
Likewise, the "great earthquake" of Matthew was induced by the angel
moving the 1 1/2 - 2 ton stone from the door of the tomb. It was confined
there.
 
CB quotes me...
|>
|> C.B. commenting on the stone...
|> Mark and Luke strongly imply say that the stone was *already* gone
when the women arrived. Matthew strongly implies that the stone was moved
|> while the women were there.
|>
|> My reply...
 
   [Biblical accounts & some comment deleted to save space. Note that the
    text of Matthew *still* implies the stone being removed after the
    women arrived...even when it's you that posts it :-)]
|>
|> To verify that the guards were not there when the women arrived
|> (therefore the stone removal took place before they got there)...
|> MAT 28:8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great
joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
|>
|> Here we see the women leaving the tomb.
|>
|> MAT 28:11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came
into |> the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that
had happened.
|>
|> Here we discover the guards entering the city AS the women left the
tomb to go to the city. Apparently, the guards had left the tomb before
the women did. It's reasonable to conclude therefore, the angel moved the
|> stone in the presence of the guards before the women got there because
|> the guards had already left for the city, not being at the tomb when
the women arrived. In fact, we see the guards ENTERING the city AS the
women leave the tomb to go there.
 
CB...
well, they (the women) left the tomb in verse 8, but your all-critical
"while they were going" doesn't occur until verse 11, so for all we can
tell here the guards could have been 10 feet in front of the women the
whole way:-).  Your explanation is possible, so is mine (or rather Mark &
Luke's). Funny how you read the word "came" in verse 11 as a completed
journey, yet don't do so in verse 1 (where it provides the implication
that the women arrived before the stone was removed). Selective
interpretation?
 
My reply...
No. An examination of the Greek indicates it's that the angelic
visitation and movement of the stone occurred before the women arrived.
Here's the New American Standard Version (which is more accurate than the
KJV)...
MAT 28:2 "And behold, a severe earthquake HAD OCCURRED..." This places
the event before the arrival of the women. And as I said before, (1) the
guards are not seen at the tomb in the other gospels, (2) there are not
in Matthew interacting with the wo men in any way, (3) if they were there
and there was no earthquake,
(a) they would have stopped the women from entering the tomb, (b) they
    would have had no reason to go to the city.
 
CB quoting me...
|>
|> I originally said...
|> |> Mark 16:7-8 "But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is
going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to
you." So  they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled
and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
 
|> |> Any first year Bible college student is confronted with this
alleged contradiction. The answer is clear. ON THE WAY TO TELL His
disciples "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." But once
they arrived in the presence of the disciples...
|>Luke 24:9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to
the |>eleven and to all the rest.
|>
|> C.B....
|> Then Mark is a liar? Or do you have a hard time grasping the meaning
of "anyone"? Not "anyone but the disciples", but "anyone". Mark
*concludes* with this, guess he thought it was the end of the story.
|>
|> My reply...
|> Mark's account closes with the women leaving to tomb GOING to the
|> disciples - the angel just told them to do it. They are recorded as
doing it in the other gospels. On the way, they told no one. It doesn't
say "they didn't tell the disciples", whom Mark just got done recording
the angel told them to go to.
 
CB...
A possible conciliation but it's *not* what Mark says. Mark does not
record that they told the disciples (again in fact says they "said
nothing to anyone"), and contrary to your claim above does nt say
anything about *where* they went...only that they "fled the tomb".
 
My reply...
I still believe that the women fled from the tomb determined not to tell
anyone but the disciples, especially since their 'leader', Jesus, had
just been crucified. And as you said, it's possible, therefore there is
no contradiction.
 
Another scholar gives this explanation...
"...it should be observed that Matthew does not actually say the women
told the disciples, but they went back with the intention to tell them.
Also, since Mark reveals that they did not speak because 'they were
afraid', it may be that at first they h eld their peace (as Mark
indicated), and then later spoke up (as Matthew may imply). It is also
possible that the women left the tomb in two groups at slightly different
times, Mark referring to one, and Matthew to the other." (_When Critics
Ask, A P opular Handbook on Bible Difficulties_, Norman Geisler, Pg. 377)
 
CB quotes me...
|>
|> C.B....
|> You haven't given any reason for the Romans to give a damn about
turning up the body, so you can't use the fact that they didn't as
evidence that they couldn't.
|>
|> My reply...
|> True.
|> But they didn't.
 
CB...
Wanna take a stab at proving that they didn't :-). [After all, should be
as easy as proving the non-occurence of an earthquake]
 
My reply...
As far as I know, there are no historical records of a body being
produced by the Romans or the Jews.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
..................