fayfreethinkers.com

SteveMc wrote:"Be honest..." is not an admonition to stop being dishonest?

Not necessarily-- it is also a reminder to do something you should be doing, whether you are already doing it or not.

SteveMc wrote:"Most of your problems stem from a very practiced study of elaborate methods of being slippery and self-serving with language. All for the cause of the Lord." Emphasis mine

It appears that the "very practiced study" is attributed to you; the "elaborate methods of being slippery and self-serving with language" is attributed to those whom you study so carefully.

Stop being so paranoid, and address the task at hand. If you can indeed perform the task, any supposed insult will be of no consequence anyway.

I'm in the library now at DTS. No more posts here until after next Friday so I can maximize my time studying.

It'll be interesting to see what you discover, Steve.

[How everybody shhhhhh... Steve is studying].

Hey, thanks for the quiet while I was studying! Really appreciate it. I plan to post tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon. GREAT week in Turpin library at Dallas Seminary. I was overwhelmed by the resources available. Actually had a brother in Christ here in Ozark give me the use of his new car to make the trip, and at the last minute a couple at the seminary made their whole apartment mine for the week while they were away on a trip. Outstanding! Looking forward to sharing some of what I learned on this thread.

Steve

Darrel, thanks for posting that link to the Facebook interaction. I had lost my link so yours was helpful. I went back and realized I never fully responded to Sav's post about the Mary Magdalene problem, which I believe you have also mentioned. I don't have time to back through all the posts to see if I have done so partially or not, so here we go. I have it about half done but things have once again crowded out my weekend. I will finish tomorrow night.

The Mary Magdalene Problem
By Farrell Till
The problem is simple: Mary Magdalene is presented in the synoptic gospels as having seen an angel or angels at the tomb, heard him or them announce the resurrection of Jesus, after which she actually encountered Jesus and worshiped him as she was running from the tomb to tell the disciples what had happened. In John's gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to Peter and the disciple "whom Jesus loved" and told them that the body had been stolen. So the problem is why Mary would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.
In order to get to the heart of the problem much quicker, let me give a rebuttal of the most commonly used "explanation" for this problem.

Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account. Let's look at it first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 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.

I am not sure what inerrantists Till is referring to. I have never heard this argument before. But I agree with Till on this point, such an explanation is not only not compatible with Matthew’s account, it is wholly unnecessary.

First off, nearly every commentator I read remarked about the unusual language of 28:1. The phrase opse de sabbaton can be taken to refer to the beginning of the next day which starts immediately after the Sabbath, at sundown on Saturday, Mark makes it clear that immediately after the Sabbath ended the women went out to purchase more spices when vendors would quickly open for business. This purchase was not the great amount carried brought by Nicodemus, which would have cost a considerable amount and required a large group of women to transport. No, this was a love offering for the body of their master.

Luke adds that the women then prepared the spices which would have taken place at home. They had already had to rest because of the Sabbath, so they were anxious to get the process started, for it is clear that they expected a corpse in the tomb. The longer they waited the more likely the body would be giving off a horrible odor. In John 11:39 Martha didn’t even want Lazarus’ tomb opened because she knew the odor would be awful. If they had waited until vendors had opened on Sunday it would have been easily midday before they would have arrived. No, the events that started the journey to the tomb started after sundown on Saturday, in keeping with the terminology used by both Matthew and Luke, and in the timeframe indicated by John for the two trips. The women made their first trip in the very early hours of the morning while it was still dark, but after the angel has rolled away the stone and frightened the soldiers off.

The most recent version of the Greek New Testament used by scholars, Nestle-Aland 27, notes evidence that ancient manuscripts may indicate that 28:1 should be taken as finishing chapter 27, as a continuation of verse 66 or an added verse 67. This would be consistent with a pattern that Matthew uses late in chapter 27 to shift focus to the women. It starts at 27:56 where the paragraph ends with noting the presence of the women at the crucifixion, specifically Mary Magdalene among others. The next paragraph ends with verse 61 with the two Marys sitting opposite the tomb. The next paragraph should end with verse 1 of chapter 28 with the women going to the tomb, consistent with the manuscript evidence cited in NA27.

This allows the kai idou of verse 2 to stand alone after the end of a narrative section as Thayer points out it is commonly used, with the idiom introducing new and surprising material.

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.

The impact on the soldiers was so severe that the soldiers pass out. This event is singularly recorded by Matthew, so there is no conflict with the other gospel accounts on this point.

From the NASB 28:5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

Compare this passage with Mark: 16:6 And he *said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’"

This is clearly the same event in the two accounts, with very minor variations. In Mark the women are clearly in the tomb when the exchange takes place.

John records that there were two trips made by the women to the tomb, and that the encounter with the angel does not take place until the second trip.

In Matthew there is no interaction with the guards. They do not acknowledge the women in any way, nor do the women acknowledge the soldiers in any way. The women had no knowledge that the guards were posted and spoke among themselves about who might roll the stone away. If they had known the guard was there they would not have gone. Numerous commentators note that there is no indication that the women saw the angel roll the stone away, not the least of which is D.A. Carson. I agree with him.

I have run out of time to finish my response today. Ended up having to repair my daughter’s vehicle to go back to college.

So I will complete it tomorrow evening bringing in the rest of Till's argumentation.

Steve

SteveMc wrote:Darrel, thanks for posting that link to the Facebook interaction. I had lost my link so yours was helpful. I went back and realized I never fully responded to Sav's post about the Mary Magdalene problem, which I believe you have also mentioned.

Yes, SAV mentioned it on Facebook in October, and I mentioned it again on Feb 2 on this forum. On February 3 your responded: "Darrel, I just read through the Mary Magdalene Problem, and I am so grateful you posted this. Otherwise I might have passed over it."

Back in October you boldly claimed, as I copied on our forum here:

"The surprise that everyone seems to be demonstrating in response to my confidence that I have a solution not only to the Magdalene dilemma, but my confidence in presenting a homogenous narrative based on all the required texts is most alarming to me."

Yet, amazingly, all of your swings at it, including this latest, as best I can tell, with all due respect, reveal to me that you do not even grasp the problem Farrell has presented. A problem you said you had solved back in October!

I don't have time to back through all the posts to see if I have done so partially or not, so here we go.

.

Steve, why don't you attempt to explain the problem so we can see that you understand the problem. It is essential that you grasp this *before* there is any talk of having a supposed *solution.* I could try to restate it to you but when I re-read Farrell's set-up of it, I really don't see how I can improve upon his straightforward, basic, clear as day, language. Maybe Doug or SAV, having some expertise with professional education can help out. I have lots of irons in fires all over the internet and am I struggling to keep an interest in this Easter question considering your consistent practice of:

a) non-response to points made
b) persistent evasion of questions asked directly and repeatedly
c) bluster of pretending to have solutions to problems you clearly do not understand

The Mary Magdalene Problem

As I think I told you on the last go around with this, why don't you attempt to answer the direct questions Farrell Till asks in his set up of the problem. Or if you think those questions are inappropriate, explain why.

[snip]

Nice artwork. Kind of gives this thread some class. I wonder if the artist thought it might be used like you did.

I share your frustration, Darrel. I too don’t know how I can make this any clearer. You are ignoring what I am saying. I told you last night I would finish tonight. But don't get a knot in your shorts. Let me jump down to the part I think you were anxious for me to get to in Till's Magdalene problem:

Till
I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Till
It is therefore evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen AND that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this AND that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb.

So my question to those who defend the Bible as consistent and without error, is this: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

It seems Till wants to have his cake and eat it too. In the top paragraph he excludes reader access to the other gospels and tries to establish that Matthew said one thing, namely that the WOMEN heard from the angel that Jesus had risen from the dead (which I agree with). Then in the second and third paragraphs forces a question upon the text of Matthew which comes from reading the gospel of John which Till states that it is unlikely the readers had access to John with not one shred of proof that they did not.

Even if they did not have it there would be no question in the minds of the readers. No conflict. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. If the readers did have access to the gospel of John they would have seen that there were two trips to the tomb by the women, and that the second trip is exactly when the announcement would have taken place just like it is clear to any reader today. NO CONFUSION!

The confusion only comes when Till forces the conclusion that the women saw the angel roll the stone and immediately speaks those words to them. There is no textual evidence that this happened, only Till’s forcing of Western English grammar, syntax, and literary styling.

Some critical commentators see such a drastic change of focus between verse 1 of Matthew 28, compared to 2-4 and what follows from verse 5 on that they believe 2-4 may be an interpolation. It is only a statement of something that happened, an explanation of how the stone was rolled away, an answer for the question the women had been asking among themselves, “Who will roll the stone away for us?”

That the women saw the angel roll the stone, and immediately heard the angel speak is an assumption, pure and simple, and one that is completely erroneous. They never saw the angel roll the stone at all.

If the readers only have Matthew they understand that an angel rolled the stone away and spoke to the women. If they have Matthew AND John they understand that an angel rolled the stone away and spoke to the women. The only difference is that with having the two gospels the readers understand there was a time gap between the two events. That is a CLARIFICATION NOT A CONTRADICTION as Till would have us believe.

It cannot be stated any more simply or clearly than this: The reason I do not see the problem Till presents is that IT DOES NOT EXIST. It is a fabrication of Till’s imagination and failure to do proper exegesis and hermeneutical analysis of the passages.

I have answered and dismantled the Mary Magdalene Problem as posted by Till, and that is the long and the short of it.

What happened to your promise to send me your book and additional material:

Dar
On February 4th:
I'll send the book shortly, with a bonus (the Fabulous Fayetteville Freethinker Fact-filled Family Fun Folder).

So far nothing.

Perhaps it was all lost in the mail. But I didn’t ask for any of it. I only wanted to help you out. So if you haven’t sent it, just keep it, and the money.

Steve

SteveMc wrote: I too don’t know how I can make this any clearer. You are ignoring what I am saying.

Really. When you ignore my questions, I repeat them and underline them. Then you ignore them again. If you don't respond to a point, I repeat it (actually, I've been lax and often let you get away with it). Conversely, you make this claim but you don't give any example of anything I have ignored. I go through your posts and respond to every question and each point. If I miss a point you think is important, simply refer to it.

Let me jump down to the part I think you were anxious for me to get to in Till's Magdalene problem:

You mean respond to the problem? The problem you solved back in October? Excellent.

Till
I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Till
It is therefore evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen AND that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this AND that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb.

So my question to those who defend the Bible as consistent and without error, is this: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

STEVE
In the top paragraph he excludes reader access to the other gospels and tries to establish that Matthew said one thing, namely that the WOMEN heard from the angel that Jesus had risen from the dead (which I agree with).

Well, what else could you say? I keep forgetting that there is no solution to your problem so there should be no surprise that we don't get one. Again, to preserve any semblance of biblical literalism, inerrancy or even consistency you absolutely must have these two things:

a) Consistency within each gospel account. Each story must be consistent and make sense on it's own
b) The separate stories need to be consistent with the other versions. Each story must be consistent and make sense when combined with the other versions.

As Till has shown, you can't do this. In "the top paragraph" Till is making point (a). Matthew needs to make sense on its own. *Obviously.*

Then in the second and third paragraphs forces a question upon the text of Matthew which comes from reading the gospel of John...

Right. In his second and third paragraphs Till make is making point (b). And it is your belief system of inerrancy and consistency that is requiring this, not his. When the story according to John, is merged with Matthew, Matthew's version no longer works, reads right or makes sense, as Till shows.

...Till states that it is unlikely the readers had access to John with not one shred of proof that they did not.

No, Till points to the requirements of (a) and (b), which are imminently reasonable and required by *your* doctrine, not ours. Matthew must make sense on it's own terms. Which it does, until you try to make it fit with these other versions, then it does not make sense.

Even if they did not have it there would be no question in the minds of the readers.

Obviously there is a question because:
a) all of the standard mainstream Christian scholarship is against you
b) we are still talking about this about 1,900 years later.

If the readers did have access to the gospel of John they would have seen that there were two trips to the tomb by the women,...

But then if there was a smart freethinking disciple around (admittedly unlikely), he would say... "hey, that's not what Matthew said!" Which of course, as Till pointed out, it's not what Matthew said.

the second trip is exactly when the announcement would have taken place just like it is clear to any reader today. NO CONFUSION!

Except this insertion makes a complete hash of Matthew's story.

The confusion only comes when Till forces the conclusion that the women saw the angel roll the stone and immediately speaks those words to them.

Actually no. This is not required. You are conflating two problems. One of them is simply based upon textual evidence that if you insert a separate trip and a couple different Mary's in between a sentence of Matthew, then you have Matthew referring to a different set of Mary's that he shows no knowledge of. That's your problem.

There is no textual evidence that this happened, only Till’s forcing of Western English grammar, syntax, and literary styling.

No, Till is requiring consistency. He is requiring (a) and (b). And (a) and (a) are not only entirely reasonable, they are required by the doctrine of biblical accuracy you are arguing for.

Some critical commentators see such a drastic change of focus between verse 1 of Matthew 28, compared to 2-4 and what follows from verse 5 on that they believe 2-4 may be an interpolation.

I bet in order to get out of this problem some inerrantists have been tempted to use the "copyist error" or "interpolation" excuse. But you don't want to play that card very often, or people won't trust your Bible. And you would have to use it a lot to even begin to address your Easter problems. And actually, there is no drastic change in Matthew. His story reads perfectly, until you try to make the other versions fit with it. This makes such a mess, it cannot be done.

That the women saw the angel roll the stone, and immediately heard the angel speak is an assumption, pure and simple, and one that is completely erroneous.

Take that up with Matthew. In his version, that's exactly how it reads. Plain as day. You would see this if you didn't have an absurd doctrine if inerrancy to defend. Again:

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
They never saw the angel roll the stone at all.

Your claim makes no sense. Read the eight verses of Matthew above.

If the readers only have Matthew they understand that an angel rolled the stone away and spoke to the women.

Right. And Matthew's version needs to be consistent and make sense on it's own. We know the Bible wasn't stitched together until centuries later. These gospels were floating around all over on their own. See here a list of a bunch of them that didn't make it into the final edit:

From the Gelasian decree found here.

...firstly we confess that the synod of Sirmium called together by Constantius Caesar the son of Constantine through the Prefect Taurus is damned then and now and for ever.

the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew
...

That's about 20% of them from the list at that link. Be thankful that you don't have to harmonize all of those too. The Catholics, tired of this mess at least cut your job down for you, but it still can't be done. These books were written separately and existed separately and the gospels are filled with blatant contradictions that cannot be reconciled with each other (as my book shows).

If they have Matthew AND John they understand that an angel rolled the stone away and spoke to the women.

No, I think they would understand that Matthew's version suddenly becomes untenable with the others. And this is only considering a few sentences!

...with having the two gospels the readers understand there was a time gap between the two events.

A time gap, a separate trip, insert some Mary's and off you go. cute.

That is a CLARIFICATION NOT A CONTRADICTION...

Hey Steve, since I am getting a little bored with your Easter excuses for the moment, let me ask you another similar question:

At Mark 10:2-12 we have Jesus saying that anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery. No exceptions. At Matthew 5:31-32, in his version of the same story, he has his Jesus say that you can divorce on the grounds of "fornication," and those who do may remarry. This is an exception. (Note: no need to get into the Greek here, it doesn't matter what the exception is)

Was Matthew just "clarifying" Mark by flatly contradicting the no exception in Mark's version of the same story? This is a rather important difference and poor Christians have been confused ever since.

I have answered and dismantled the Mary Magdalene Problem as posted by Till, and that is the long and the short of it.

Well, that's not been my understanding, but readers can see what they think.

What happened to your promise to send me your book and additional material:
Dar
On February 4th:
I'll send the book shortly, with a bonus (the Fabulous Fayetteville Freethinker Fact-filled Family Fun Folder).
So far nothing. Perhaps it was all lost in the mail. But I didn’t ask for any of it. I only wanted to help you out. So if you haven’t sent it, just keep it, and the money.

Just so readers know, Steve didn't send me money to buy my book, which is $16 (I just lowered the price!), he just wanted to send me $10 one day, out of the blue. Perhaps God told him to do it just like God told him I do something with "music." Incidentally, people sending me money in the mail is something I very much approve of and to you readers out there, it is encouraged.
So I told him, don't send the money unless you want to get a free copy of my book. As to when I would send it, I was using "shortly" in the biblical sense. You know:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;…" Rev. 1:1

So, shortly as in 2,000 years, give or take.

Actually, it's sitting here on my desk. I just haven't been by the Poste. I'm a very busy beaver and once it wasn't going to get to you before your trip, it wasn't a priority. So as it says in the good book:

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." 1 Peter 4:7

Let me say: "The delivery of your book is at hand, be ye therefore sober, and watch for it, with prayer." And unlike the promise in the Bible, it will happen in a few days, "shortly," rather than... never.

SteveMc wrote:It cannot be stated any more simply or clearly than this: The reason I do not see the problem Till presents is that IT DOES NOT EXIST. It is a fabrication of Till’s imagination and failure to do proper exegesis and hermeneutical analysis of the passages.

I have answered and dismantled the Mary Magdalene Problem as posted by Till, and that is the long and the short of it.

The Mary Magdalene Problem is easily summarized as follows: After Mary Magdalene and whoever else was with her left the tomb-- regardless of what they saw, or any intervening time span-- Matthew and Luke say they told the disciples that Jesus had risen, Mark says they told nobody anything, and John says they told "Simon Peter, and... the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been stolen.

They can't all be right, and that being the case, the Bible is not inerrant. You didn't address that problem at all. You're not really the one to talk about "failure to do proper exegesis and hermeneutical analysis of the passages."

By ignoring the actual issues presented, you keep hermeneutering your own position.

David! I am glad to see there is another man who is not afraid to have his last name known on this thread.

By ignoring the actual issues presented, you keep hermeneutering your own position.

LOL! "...hermeneutering..." I love it! You guys are so creative with words. I have seen that a few times on this thread.

But if you are going to be involved I suggest you focus, just like I have been reminded more than a few times:

Mark says they told nobody anything, and John says they told "Simon Peter, and... the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been stolen.

That is not part of Till's original Mary Magdalene Problem post, but a tack-on. I haven't gotten to Mark yet, and oh, you guys will really blow a gasket when I do.

The Mary Magdalene Problem is easily summarized as follows: After Mary Magdalene and whoever else was with her left the tomb-- regardless of what they saw, or any intervening time span-- Matthew and Luke say they told the disciples that Jesus had risen,

You aren't paying attention any more than Darrel seems to be. John says there were two trips. His second trip agrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the main point-that was when they encountered the angel(s). The second trip was when they said he had risen. Is that too complicated an explanation? I am not sure I can simplify it any further.

They can't all be right, and that being the case, the Bible is not inerrant. You didn't address that problem at all. You're not really the one to talk about "failure to do proper exegesis and hermeneutical analysis of the passages."

You really have to take this up with Darrel. He is the one who keeps stating I am an inerrantist. I have never said that.

Ciao!

Steve

Careful readers will note that Steve again avoids answering questions, or responding to directly to points. But he does tell us to look out
for the good stuff that he has coming. Gaskets will be blown! Christians... always with their empty promises.

Hey Steve, is Sherlock Holmes smart? Why are you afraid answer this question? You said you were "shooting fish in a barrel" and were going to "paint us into a corner" by making a point that we can't talk about Jesus, or his supposed actions and statements, unless we believed these things actually occurred. Did you figure out all on your own that this was a really stupid thing to say, or did the Sherlock Holmes example help you along? I suppose it did since you dropped that topic like a hot potato.

And Jesus lying? You've ran from that. Remember:

1. I have spoken openly to the world.
2. I have always taught in a synagogue and in the temple where the Jews always gather.
3. in secret I have said nothing.

All false. I addressed directly all of your excuses for #1 and #2, but not only have you ducked responding, you never did even make an attempt to address #3. Why is that? Is it because you know it's a lie? I hope so.

New policy: questions that you continue to tuck tail and run from will now be included in each of my posts, until you answer them.

SteveMc wrote: DAVID
Mark says they told nobody anything, and John says they told "Simon Peter, and... the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been stolen.

STEVE
That is not part of Till's original Mary Magdalene Problem post, but a tack-on.

Again Steven reveals that he doesn't grasp the problem Till has presented.

I haven't gotten to Mark yet,...

There is no not "getting to Mark" yet, it's all in the stew and you have to make it all fit.

DAVID
The Mary Magdalene Problem is easily summarized as follows: After Mary Magdalene and whoever else was with her left the tomb-- regardless of what they saw, or any intervening time span-- Matthew and Luke say they told the disciples that Jesus had risen,

STEVE
John says there were two trips. His second trip agrees with Matthew,...

His second trip, agrees with the Matthew trip, except for all of the points it doesn't agree on. John's second trip agrees with Matthew? Let's see:

MAT 28:8
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Let's ask John.

JOHN 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. ... 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, ... 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

So in Matthew's trip, they hold him by the feet and worship him, but in John, they go home and Mary doesn't recognize the guy, and she is specifically not allowed to touch him (John 20:17). I've forgotten what a mess this is.

STEVE
[Darrel]is the one who keeps stating I am an inerrantist. I have never said that.

Actually you did.

"I believe in inerrancy in the original manuscripts,..." --Steve, January 20, this forum

If you knew a bit more about these topics you pretend to have knowledge of, you would know that belief in "inerrancy in the original manuscripts" is precisely what people believe when they believe in "biblical inerrancy."

David, you'll have to forgive Steve, even though he's "Not Ashamed" of the gospel, he is ashamed of any title that goes along with his religion (maybe he doesn't consider himself "religious," lots of people don't since it has gotten such a bad name for itself). While he teaches at a Baptist church, he won't accept the label of baptist. He did try to adopt the label of "Freethinker" but that got shot down rather quick. Perhaps he was trying that old deception Paul used to like to use:

I Corinthians 9 :20 -23
"To the Jews I [Paul] became a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those
under the law, I became as one under the Law, that I might win those under
the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law...that I
might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win
the weak. I have become all things to all men that I might by all means save
some."

Steve has claimed he's not a "fundamentalist" but when I asked him on January 19:

So you don't agree with the five fundamentals from 1910?

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

As usual, he ran from this question because of course he believes all of this and a fertilizer tractor load more, which makes him, however reluctant, a "fundamentalist." That's what fundamentalists believe. But I don't need to ask his permission to point out what he is, and what he is afraid to admit he is, I already have his permission:

"You can label me how ever you like." --Steve, January 20, this forum

You are a person, Steve, who has a broken chocolate Easter Jesus, actually four of them, and the pieces have been passed around and some are missing and some come from some where else and now you can't put the pieces of chocolate Jesus back together.

D.
-------------------
Old news blurb:

JESUS SWEET IN BAD TASTE
A chocolate Jesus which bleeds red jam has outraged Church leaders. The Easter sweet is marketed as the "immaculate confection." It's a
model of Christ nailed to a chocolate cross, and comes complete with a crown of thorns and a look of agony.
The chocolate Christ is named Sweet Jesus by the man who invented it, Richard Manderson, of Canberra, Australia. He says eating them
should make people more aware of the meaning of Easter than munching a chocolate egg. And he's hit on the slogan: "Put religion back into Easter with an edible icon."
But Sydney Catholic Church spokesman Father Brian Lucas hit back: "They're irreverent and offensive. It's an appalling exercise in bad taste."

When people need to eat their bits of Jesus, they need to come to the church and get the real thing!

SteveMc wrote:Mark says they told nobody anything, and John says they told "Simon Peter, and... the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been stolen.

That is not part of Till's original Mary Magdalene Problem post, but a tack-on.

While the inclusion of the disparity in Mark is a "tack-on", that is a technicality, and useless to you. Even if the title of the post should be "The Mary Magdalene Problems", the core "Mary Magdalene Problem" is that the Gospels are not consistent in reporting what Mary Magdalene told the disciples-- if anything-- and to which disciples she told it. The only way you can resolve the problem is to limit yourself to one Gospel. The Bible you use contains (only, thank goodness) four of them.

His second trip agrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the main point-that was when they encountered the angel(s). The second trip was when they said he had risen. Is that too complicated an explanation? I am not sure I can simplify it any further.

They don't really agree. In John, Jesus appears at the tomb; Mary M. (who is alone) is not allowed to touch Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus appears somewhere on the way to the disciples; they (Mary M. and Mary) "took hold of his feet". In Mark, Mary M., Mary and Salome (the group just keeps getting bigger) "said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid"; then, in (to use your term) a "tack-on", Jesus appears to Mary M. at some point after she had apparently ditched her lady friends. If you include the bit sometimes interpolated at about verses 8 and 9, or used as an alternate ending, the account differs even more clearly because there is no appearance of Jesus before the women tell the disciples what they had seen-- the news came from an angel.

You really have to take this up with Darrel. He is the one who keeps stating I am an inerrantist. I have never said that.

Perhaps not in so many words, but apparently in other words:
"I really wish someone would point out the irreconcilable problems in the passages, because to be honest it is starting to worry me that I haven't found any yet."
"I am completely sincere when I say that it is hard to determine what I value more at this point, the increased level of trust in the passages in question as I have hammered through what have appeared to others as insurmountable obstacles for hundreds of years (as Doug pointed out), or the humility to put away the big stick and judgmental attitude and stop ranting because many doubt as a result of what they see as errors."
"I do lean toward the Chicago statement" [Isn't that like being "a little pregnant"?]
"I believe in inerrancy in the original manuscripts" [and, apparently, selected Biblical translations]

You aren't having doubts about your faith are you Steve? Because if you are, we can help you with that.

Oh, Darrel, you are soooo kind. Not a chance of weakening in my faith. I do appreciate the book, and the bonus materials. They will be a big help as I train high schoolers and college students about what they will face apologetically from folks like you guys. No, I have been super busy between vehicle repairs, plumbing repairs, family stuff, church responsibilities. And ya know, it is funny how your priorities sort themselves out when you have to choose between helping people who actually value your skills and abilities, and those who would like to tear you down if possible. Sorry, but you guys ended up near the bottom of the list for a while. I still have more to do, but I can get to that a little later. Just not enough of me to go around.

At any rate, I have had to snatch moments here and there over the last ten days, and I will have a post ready in an hour or so. Definitely don't want to disappoint.

Darrel, you are so right, we need to add some rules to this interaction. I will have a couple of my own to contribute.

Now, back to work on the post.

Steve

I don't think you guys understood what I was saying in my previous post about the Mary Magdalene Problem, so let me repeat with some clarification:

SteveMc wrote:
Mark says they told nobody anything, and John says they told "Simon Peter, and... the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been stolen.

That is not part of Till's original Mary Magdalene Problem post, but a tack-on.

David Franks
“While the inclusion of the disparity in Mark is a "tack-on", that is a technicality, and useless to you.”

I beg to differ with you. It isn’t at all a technicality. It is a statement of fact, and Mark 16:8 is not a verse I have dealt with yet. What I was responding to was Sav’s invitation to answer Till’s Mary Magdalene Problem because I have been accused over and over that I duck questions. So I went back to my original exchange with Sav on Facebook to see what I may have “ducked” with him and picked up with what he asked me to do. At his request I responded to Till’s presentation of the Mary Magdalene Problem, and specifically what Till defined as that problem. Perhaps you haven’t read it in a while. Let me quote Till as to the nature of the “problem” as he sees it:

Till
“So the problem is…”

Do you see that? Can you understand what Till said? He is about to delineate the problem he as he perceived it. This what I addressed in my response to Sav.

Till
“…why Mary would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.” And at the end he then restates his view of the problem with slightly different language: “So my question to those who defend the Bible as consistent and without error, is this: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?”

So then, the problem, as defined by Till, is that when Mary’s declaration to the disciples in Matthew’s account is compared with Mary’s statement to the disciples after her first visit to the tomb in John’s account, the two do not line up. Surprise, surprise. If you read only Matthew, no problem. If you read only John, no problem. But when you read both and understand there were two trips, the latter of which is the one which Matthew mentions, the problem as Till defines it does not exist.

David Franks
"Even if the title of the post should be "The Mary Magdalene Problems", the core "Mary Magdalene Problem" is that the Gospels are not consistent in reporting what Mary Magdalene told the disciples-- if anything-- and to which disciples she told it. The only way you can resolve the problem is to limit yourself to one Gospel. The Bible you use contains (only, thank goodness) four of them."

Regardless of what you want to call the "core" problem, I addressed what Till said the problem was. If you want to have your own version, go for it.

Once again, let me restate my assertion: His second trip agrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the main point-that was when they encountered the angel(s). The second trip was when they said he had risen. Is that too complicated an explanation? I am not sure I can simplify it any further.

“They don't really agree.”

Please pay closer attention to what I write, and what the text says. First off, I wrote, “His second trip agrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke IN THE MAIN POINT- THAT WAS WHEN THEY ENCOUNTERED THE ANGEL(S).” The main point is the interaction with the angel(s).

“In John, Jesus appears at the tomb; Mary M. (who is alone) is not allowed to touch Jesus.”

The form of the verb in John 20:17 haptomai “touch” coupled with the negative particle me makes this a negative present imperative. Dr. Daniel Wallace taught on this verb form the day I attended his honors Greek class at Dallas during my week there. It can mean either of two things: don’t do what you are about to do, or stop doing what you are doing. Which of the two is completely at the discretion of the interpreter. The latter fits the context best when comparing the passage to its complement in Matt 28:9.

In Matthew, Jesus appears somewhere on the way to the disciples; they (Mary M. and Mary) "took hold of his feet". In Mark, Mary M., Mary and Salome (the group just keeps getting bigger) "said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid"; then, in (to use your term) a "tack-on", Jesus appears to Mary M. at some point after she had apparently ditched her lady friends. If you include the bit sometimes interpolated at about verses 8 and 9, or used as an alternate ending, the account differs even more clearly because there is no appearance of Jesus before the women tell the disciples what they had seen-- the news came from an angel.

The ending of Mark is arguably one of the most debated questions of the New Testament. It won’t end with our discussion. In fact, let me dump some gasoline on it.

Text critical scholars have for decades wrangled over not just which of two endings know as the longer ending or shorter was correct (although most now seem to reject either), but the fact that the ending of the Greek construction of the end of Mark 16:8 is completely unnatural. It ends with gar, which is most often interpreted for. It is usually translated “for they were afraid.” However, this is not how it is constructed, it actually literally reads, “…they were afraid for…” In other words, the end of Mark actually indicates there was more.

Consider a nearly identical statement in Mark 9:6 “…6 because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.” NKJV There the Greek text has gar preceding ekphoboi, whereas in 16:8 it follows ephobounto. No where does Mark end a sentence or even a paragraph with gar.

In other words the construction of the present end of Mark 16:8 argues that there was indeed a different ending beyond what is present. There is no way to know what exactly Mark was saying with the abrupt end that it presently has, but it is virtually certain there was more, which is reinforced by the presence of the longer and shorter readings that we do have.

So no argument of weight can be made that the women did not tell anyone because the statement is cut off mid-stride.

We do not know what Mark was trying to say at the end of his gospel.

That is it for tonight.

Steve

1) Hey Steve, is Sherlock Holmes smart? Why are you afraid answer this question?
2) Regarding your point about how we can't talk about Jesus, or his supposed actions and statements unless we believed these things actually occurred, did you figure out why this is not the case?

SteveMc wrote:Oh, Darrel, you are soooo kind.

That's true. I really am.

Not a chance of weakening in my faith.

This comment reveals you to be a dogmatist. In philosophy dogmatism is a fallacy. Your comment reveals why what you do has nothing to do with critical thinking or a pursuit of wisdom and truth. I would never, under any circumstances say there is no chance of you changing my position. You have every chance in the world of changing my position on anything, all you need is good reasons, good arguments and good evidence. That's what I base my beliefs on. If you have good reasons, good arguments and good evidence for your claims, I will promptly and whole heartily embrace your claims. To say I would not, in advance, would be dogmatism, and irrational.

I do appreciate the book, and the bonus materials.

You're welcome.

They will be a big help as I train high schoolers and college students about what they will face apologetically from folks like you guys.

I hope so. Be careful to dribble it out slowly with piles and piles of apologetic and lots of stern warnings about how they may burn in hell if they deviate from what they are told to believe upon faith. To not do so opens them up to learning something new and dangerous. As the Christian Barna group found a few years ago, it's getting harder and harder to force feed fundism to the children while keeping them in fear and superstition by shielding them from quick and easy access to scholarly information which flattens your antique notions about the Bible. I had a preacher tell me once (young earth creationist, SDA) that when the children graduate from high school, they graduate from the church. Note:

"A new nationwide survey conducted by The [Christian] Barna Group... explored how many have what might be considered a “biblical worldview.” ...
National Results
Overall, the current research revealed that only 9% of all American adults have a biblical worldview." -- http://tinyurl.com/ckqa68

And what the future holds:
"...less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation - i.e., those aged 18 to 23 - have a biblical worldview, compared to about one out of every nine older adults."
http://www.edstetzer.com/2009/03/barna- ... lical.html

And if you need any clarifications or notice any boo boo's in that material, do pass them along and I will duly note and correct errors.

have to choose,... those who would like to tear you down if possible.

True, accurate, robust claims have no fear of being torn down. In fact, they welcome and are made stronger if they can withstand the fire of skeptical scrutiny. If you claims are well founded, you don't have anything to fear from critical examination. My experience with this subject informs me that you have a great deal to fear from a critical examination.

...we need to add some rules to this interaction.

A very reasonable and common sense rule would be that each side agrees to address all of the other persons points, and answer all questions put to them. I always attempt to do this and if I fall short, simply direct my attention to the point, or question. For some reason you have studiously avoided addressing points, and questions, from the beginning. This is some kind of intellectual protection mechanism that has not served you well as you have developed your opinions over the years.

I think your latest suggestion for a common sense rule is a good one. We can get to others later.

Dar
A very reasonable and common sense rule would be that each side agrees to address all of the other person’s points, and answer all questions put to them. I always attempt to do this and if I fall short, simply direct my attention to the point, or question.

But that sword cuts both ways. So, since I never got this sequence addressed earlier, and since I asked first and it prompted your question about Sherlock Holmes, I will restate the points for both you AND Doug to respond to. My response to your question about Holmes is already written. All you need to have me post it is address each of my points, not tritely dismiss them.

Steve
I will conclude by what you have said so far that:
A. You believe that Jesus is a real historical figure, and not a figment of imagination like some atheists seem to contend.
B. You believe that the encounter between the high priests, the Sanhedrin with all attendees, and Jesus really took place.
C. That the high priest was really interrogating Jesus.
D. That the words recorded by John were really spoken by Jesus and accurately written down.
E. That the words as recorded in the Gospel according to John are the same words that John actually wrote (that is, there was no corruption in the transmission of them from the autograph to the texts from which modern scholars work to produce our current translations).

No big deal, just address the points.

Ball is in your court.

Steve

SteveMc wrote: DAR
A very reasonable and common sense rule would be that each side agrees to address all of the other person’s points, and answer all questions put to them. I always attempt to do this and if I fall short, simply direct my attention to the point, or question.

But that sword cuts both ways.

So when are you going to begin addressing points directly, rather than ducking them, and addressing questions directly, rather than running from them?

So, since I never got this sequence addressed earlier, and since I asked first and it prompted your question about Sherlock Holmes, I will restate the points for both you AND Doug to respond to.

These weren't questions and you addressed them to Doug. But Doug has a lot of things going on right now, so I don't know if he is interested enough to follow this issue. If you understand the Holmes question, or the Peanuts question, then you perhaps understand that it is not necessary for characters to exist, or actions to have actually taken place, in order to talk about the attributes of characters written in a book. See Huckleberry Finn.

My response to your question about Holmes is already written.

So Steve continues duck and waffle, and can't answer a straight up question. Pathetic.

All you need to have me post it is address each of my points, not tritely dismiss them.

Points? Apparently you don't understand the Sherlock Holmes question. Good grief. And you can't even be bothered to put these forward as questions?

Steve
I will conclude by what you have said so far that:
A. You believe that Jesus is a real historical figure, and not a figment of imagination like some atheists seem to contend.

I am about 60/40 in favor of the notion that there was an actual Jewish fellow upon whom the Bible tales are loosely based. If he existed, as far as we know he wrote nothing, nor is there any record he told anyone to write anything. There is no reason to believe that anyone who wrote a word of the NT (all anonymous except for Paul) ever met Jesus. No one word a word about him during his lifetime. So no one can really know whether he really existed, or if he said the things attributed to him in the Bible. As Schweitzer noted:

There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of God upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.... He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb." --Dr Albert Schweitzer, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus"

But, mere existence is a rather mundane claim, and I think it would be a little more extraordinary if there wasn't a fellow, somewhere, at the root of these stories. As Burton Mack notes in his "Who Wrote the Gospels?" the cynical and cryptic sayings of Jesus were very much in vogue at the time. Lot's of mystics were floating around saying these sorts of things at that time. Jesus could be an amalgam of several characters. When we talk about when Sherlock Holmes did such and such, or said something or had certain attributes, whether he actually existed is a different matter not relevant to what is claimed in the stories. When talking about Holmes or Jesus, or Huck Finn, all we have, and all we will ever have, is what it says in the books. So we refer to the books, fictional or not.

B. You believe that the encounter between the high priests, the Sanhedrin with all attendees, and Jesus really took place.

I know of no good reasons to believe that. We don't know who wrote these stories and we have no reason to believe the anonymous folks who wrote these stories were there, if these encounters occurred. So the honest answer is, no one knows. Relevance to these Bible questions = zero.

C. That the high priest was really interrogating Jesus.

Ditto.

D. That the words recorded by John [1] were really spoken by Jesus [2] and accurately written down.[3]

Modern scholarship does not support assumption (1), and I know of no good reasons to believe (2), and (3).

E. That the words as recorded in the Gospel according to John are the same words that John actually wrote...

Nobody knows. No one knows who wrote this gospel, modern scholarship acknowledges it is anonymous like the rest. Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author” (_The New Testament_, 96)

(that is, there was no corruption in the transmission of them from the autograph to the texts from which modern scholars work to produce our current translations).[/i]

We do have evidence of specific instances of corruption, but I am not up on how substantial it is. I've always been content to work with what we have because it hardly matters since it's unlikely we'll be having much more data on the question. With my studies I have found more than enough to demolish any notion of accuracy, consistency and thus inerrancy or inspiration. As Thomas Paine put it:

The evidence I shall produce is contained in the book itself; I will not go out of the Bible for proof against the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is always good against itself." And:
"My belief in the perfection of the Deity will not permit me to believe, that a book [the Bible] so manifestly obscure, disorderly, and contradictory, can be his work. I can write a better book myself."
--Age of Reason pg. 117

I do plan to read these works by scholar Bart Ehrman:
"Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" LINK
"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" LINK

Then I'll be more up on how much your Bible has been fiddled with. You would think they would have done a better job of fixing boo boo's while they were at it. Thomas Jefferson once noted that it was pretty obvious the Bible had been heavily fiddled with when he compared it to a pile of dung with a few diamonds in it:

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." --Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814, LINK

No big deal, just address the points.

No big deal indeed. Whether Jesus actually existed is a very interesting question, and one I have debated rather extensively over the years, but it is not at all relevant to the questions and problems you have before you. To accomplish consistency, you need to make your stories work, whether the claims in them are true or pure fiction, unadulterated, fiction.

Darrel is right that I have a LOT going on this semester, and the kinds of assertions and evasions in which Steve is engaging with regard to Farrell Till's Mary Magdalene problem are nothing new to me or Darrel, so I am quite content to let Darrel handle it, as he is showing how Steve would rather spend 95% of his time ducking the questions Darrel asks.

Darrel has already responded to Steve's list of points, but since Steve wants my response too, I will oblige.

SteveMc wrote: I will restate the points for both you AND Doug to respond to...
I will conclude by what you have said so far that:
A. You believe that Jesus is a real historical figure, and not a figment of imagination like some atheists seem to contend.

If you would like to debate the issue of the historical evidence for Jesus, we can set up a thread for that too. While most New Testament scholars would assert (since most are Christian) that Jesus was a real historical figure, every major New Testament scholar would also concede that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is virtually nonexistent. We cannot place Jesus with certainty in space and time, historically speaking. When he was born, where he was born, when he was crucified, why he was crucified, what his mission was, etc. are issues one would think would not be so nebulous if there really were this historical figure behind the New Testament mythical figure.

By the way, there was a clever physician named Bell who was supposedly the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, but Sherlock Holmes is still a fictional character.

SteveMc wrote:B. You believe that the encounter between the high priests, the Sanhedrin with all attendees, and Jesus really took place.

If it did take place, there is not the slightest reason to believe that the New Testament has any accurate account of it.

SteveMc wrote:C. That the high priest was really interrogating Jesus.

If it did take place, there is not the slightest reason to believe that the New Testament has any accurate account of it. Especially since the accounts are contradictory.

SteveMc wrote:D. That the words recorded by John were really spoken by Jesus and accurately written down.

No New Testament scholar of note would be caught dead asserting such a thing.

SteveMc wrote:E. That the words as recorded in the Gospel according to John are the same words that John actually wrote (that is, there was no corruption in the transmission of them from the autograph to the texts from which modern scholars work to produce our current translations).

No New Testament scholar of note would be caught dead asserting such a thing. If you were to go to the major theological schools in the country, the ones with academic freedom, where scholars can speak openly without fear of being fired for contradicting an inerrancy "mission statement," you would be laughed right off the campus for asserting uncorrupted transmission. Read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus to see how we have solid evidence that there was NOT uncorrupted transmission.

Assert what you will, I have all of modern scholarship on my side, scholarship from Harvard Divinity School, Princetion Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School, University of Chicago Divinity School, etc.--all the top, accredited seminaries in the United States. You have only fundamentalist "scholars" on your side, who cannot muster arguments of any significance to defend their positions, who cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas and are relegated to narrow-minded pretenses of institutions of higher learning and academically incestuous "journals" that enforce strict guidelines about what dogmas must be upheld. Scholarship trumps your mere assertions. To defend your position you must show that ALL of the world's top New Testament scholars are wrong and you are right.

Good luck.