A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

[Ben_Masada]

A Challenge to Our Intelligence

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

When the women got there the place was deserted. Instead of the guards, the author reports about an earthquake, when an angel came down from heaven and removed the stone; but the women could not do their job, because there was no one in the tomb; Jesus was not there. Even the angel had been cheated form being an eyewitness.

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Then the soldiers that the women had not seen at the tomb, appeared at the house of the priests to say that the tomb was empty and of course, to get a good bribe with the advice to spread around that while they were sleeping, Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body. That’s the insult to the intelligence even of a moron, let alone to those who have a mind to think.

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

Ben

 

[Eucharisted]

The only insult is that you dare to come onto a Catholic forum and mock the Catholic Faith.

Once again, I am reporting you for prostylizing.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The only insult is that you dare to come onto a Catholic forum and mock the Catholic Faith.

Once again, I am reporting you for prostylizing.

Do you think the Moderator is stupid to see intention of proselytizing in this thread? I want to see what kind of light you guys have on this matter. Who knows, I might be wrong! Moderators know that Jews have no interest in making proselytes. We don’t have anything to offer you in the afterlife. Isn’t it what you are all after?Besides, this section is for NON-Catholics. What are you afraid of?

 

[Hadi]

The only insult is that you dare to come onto a Catholic forum and mock the Catholic Faith.

Once again, I am reporting you for prostylizing.

prostylizing

I don’t see any insult in this topic…and may I remind you that you once called him a liar not so long ago…

 

[NotTooSmart]

I don’t see any insult in this topic…and may I remind you that you once called him a liar not so long ago…

You are exactly right. This is just an honest question. But, as I have learned, this is typical behaviour by the one true church here.

 

[Ben_Masada]

prostylizing

I don’t see any insult in this topic…and may I remind you that you once called him a liar not so long ago…

Thanks for the support, Hadi. It’s good to feel I am not alone out there in the wilderness.

 

[Newbie2]

A Challenge to Our Intelligence

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

When the women got there the place was deserted. Instead of the guards, the author reports about an earthquake, when an angel came down from heaven and removed the stone; but the women could not do their job, because there was no one in the tomb; Jesus was not there. Even the angel had been cheated form being an eyewitness.

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Then the soldiers that the women had not seen at the tomb, appeared at the house of the priests to say that the tomb was empty and of course, to get a good bribe with the advice to spread around that while they were sleeping, Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body. That’s the insult to the intelligence even of a moron, let alone to those who have a mind to think.

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

Ben

I suggest that if one is a literalist, it will insult one’s sense of literal detail. I also suggest that your conclusion, in red, is a non-sequitur, for which you have no evidence except in your own confused mind.

If his body had been stolen, the only to account for his having been seen by a large number of witnesses is some sort of mass hallucination. Believe that if you will, friend. Yours is a fine story, for fiction. Perhaps you should write a novel.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Ben,

To suggest that the body was never there or was removed before guards were placed is an insult to Christians everywhere.

Just because you want to antagonize God and God’s people doesn’t give you the right to offer up insults.

Please refrain from insulting God and His people.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I suggest that if one is a literalist, it will insult one’s sense of literal detail. I also suggest that your conclusion, in red, is a non-sequitur, for which you have no evidence except in your own confused mind.

If his body had been stolen, the only to account for his having been seen by a large number of witnesses is some sort of mass hallucination. Believe that if you will, friend. Yours is a fine story, for fiction. Perhaps you should write a novel.

**Of the things you mention above, the most impressive are “the large number of witnesses.” I don’t need a large number or even a smal one, but if you point to me in your own NT one single eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus, you have succeeded to make a Catholic out of this Jew. Do you wanna try it? **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

To suggest that the body was never there or was removed before guards were placed is an insult to Christians everywhere.

Just because you want to antagonize God and God’s people doesn’t give you the right to offer up insults.

Please refrain from insulting God and His people.

**Very good! When the angel of Matthew came down from Heaven and removed the tombstone, what was inside? Do you care to answer me? And the angel said to the women, “He is not here.” (Mat. 28:6) What does it mean, that the body was there?

And regarding God’s People, what do you mean? I thought God’s People was the Jewish People. Has the Catholic Church also adopted Replacement Theology?**

 

[KindredSoul]

**Of the things you mention above, the most impressive are “the large number of witnesses.” I don’t need a large number or even a smal one, but if you point to me in your own NT one single eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus, you have succeeded to make a Catholic out of this Jew. Do you wanna try it? **

Before we endeavor to give you eyewitnesses, let us make sure we’re sharing the same logic, here. You do see that coming face to face with a person who has died but is now alive is virtually the same as being a witness to their resurrection, don’t you? If you are not a witness to the event itself, you are still a witness to the fact in that case. It’s kind of hard for a dead person to, you know, be alive unless something happened to change their state of death in between.

If you concede to that logic, and I fail to see how it is anything but sound, then yes, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection in that sense. But first, we should wait to see if you realize the premise above.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Ben_Masada]

Before we endeavor to give you eyewitnesses, let us make sure we’re sharing the same logic, here. You do see that coming face to face with a person who has died but is now alive is virtually the same as being a witness to their resurrection, don’t you? If you are not a witness to the event itself, you are still a witness to the fact in that case. It’s kind of hard for a dead person to, you know, be alive unless something happened to change their state of death in between.

If you concede to that logic, and I fail to see how it is anything but sound, then yes, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection in that sense. But first, we should wait to see if you realize the premise above.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

**Are you sure you know the etimology of the word EYEWITNESS? Eyewitness is the one who saw Jesus being raised from the dead. To have seen Jesus after his crucifixion is not proof even that he died, let alone that he resurrected.

Take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke said that Jesus showed himself that he was alive after his sufferings or his passion, as we have in the KJV. To be seen alive after one’s suffering or passion, is no proof that he died and much less that he resurrected. That you refuse to take it from me, it’s understandable, but to take it from Luke, you have no excuse.**

 

[KindredSoul]

Are you sure you know the etimology of the word EYEWITNESS? Eyewitness is the one who saw Jesus being raised from the dead. To have seen Jesus after his crucifixion is not proof even that he died, let alone that he resurrected.

I’m quite sure I know what the word Eyewitness means. I do recall using the word “virtually” as to indicate the obvious fact (which you have dismissed so lightly) that the difference in the proof provided between someone seeing Him alive after He had been known to be dead and someone who actually saw Him as He was in the act of rising from the dead is strictly a technicality when it comes to witnessing whether or not a dead man was no longer dead…the last statement, after all, is the essential question. Did a dead man rise again from the dead, and were there witnesses to the fact that he had done so?

Take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke said that Jesus showed himself that he was alive after his sufferings or his passion, as we have in the KJV. To be seen alive after one’s suffering or passion, is no proof that he died and much less that he resurrected. That you refuse to take it from me, it’s understandable, but to take it from Luke, you have no excuse.

Luke also said in the Gospel of Luke, 23: 46 “…and when He had said this, He breathed his last,” which, as anyone knows, means he died. So appealing to Luke to imply that it was vague whether or not Jesus died simply isn’t a workable strategy on this question. Considering that the same author who said “…He breathed his last” says that after the fact He “showed Himself that He was alive after His sufferings”, I do not see how you thought your appeal to Luke would prove your point.

By the way, let us establish: A man is flogged at least around forty times, a bloody, painful procedure (a study of Roman history tells how brutal flogging was, as were the instruments used); this same man is forced to carry a cross, which quite believably due to the trauma of his flogging, he could barely do and certainly could not do without help. The same man has his wrists and ankles more or less shattered in the center by having nails–bulky enough nails to support body weight–driven into them, and shows no reaction whatsoever to the stabbing of his side. There was a crowd of people who witnessed his death, including those who had a vested interest in being sure he really was dead, so he was at least “dead enough” to satisfy them. So, whether he was the Messiah or not, we can establish that he went through the ringer in such a way that people do not recover to “good as new” status in a few days if they (somehow) survive the ordeal.

And you would imply that this man, if he was somehow barely alive after all, but without any supernatural explanation or healing, had the strength to go about casually travelling along roads by himself until he met up with two people he’d known (Luke 24: 13-25), apparently looking like a perfectly normal traveller who had not been flogged into a bloody/scarred up mess, so much that it threw his old friends off as to his identity at first (they would understandably have been expecting the injured mess of a man from calvary), and generally functioning like a man who had not just been through the kind of torture that one does not easily dismiss after three days? Pray tell, why, but for the bias of a skeptic, would this make any more sense than believing that something miraculous was going on?

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[DOShea]

Sorry for the length; will take 2 posts to fully reply.

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

This assumes that Jewish priests always followed the letter of the laws. There is clear evidence that they did not, otherwise when Jesus entered the temple with His disciples to celebrate the Passover, He would have had no cause to be upset over what He saw going on there. But He did have cause, and these events are even backed up by secular texts such as Alfred Edersheim’s works detailing such practices as artificially inflating the exchange rate from Roman coinage to shekels inside the temple for those who came to pay their annual temple tax required of them by laws given in the book of Exodus. That rate was set by temple authorities. The required tax was 1/2 shekel, but the temple authorities jacked up the exchange rate in the weeks leading up to Passover to 8:1, thus it cost you 4 shekels in equivalent Roman coinage just to pay your temple tax. The normal cost of the minimum acceptable sacrifice, two turtle doves, was roughly just under 10 cents, but in the two weeks leading up to Passover the price escalated to almost $2. Since all this scalping was taking place INside the temple, it can hardly be said the Jewish authorities of that day were a model of scrupulousness in holding to their own laws.

You might also recall that Josephus detailed in his later historical account of period immediately following Christ’s death that the Chief Priest Ananus was deposed in AD 62 for illegally convening the Sanhedrin in the case of James and some other followers who were sentenced to death by stoning.

So it is clear that not all of these people of high religious position were models of sanctity. And that’s not even touching the matter of Judas and the 30 pieces of silver.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

The Chief Priest and the Pharisees were responding to what they viewed as a crisis. In such times, exceptions were often made to “the law.” David eating the shewbread, for instance. There is no compelling reason to feel assured that a law constrained them from acting in their own self-interest. Also, nothing says they “entered” the area of the tomb, only that “they went and made the sepulchre secure, the guard being with them.” Nothing says this can’t mean they stood at a distance and supervised Roman guards rolling a stone in place and slapping a bit of mortar in the seam.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

Please re-read the actual words of Matthew’s text. It clearly states “late on the sabbath day as it began to dawn…”

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

That is your private interpretation. The Gospel account says nothing about them having one thought in mind (moving the stone). What it does say is that sometime around dawn the women went there, there was an earthquake, the stone was moved, and when they got there all they saw was an angel sitting on the rock, telling them Jesus wasn’t there, He had risen, and they were welcome to take a look inside the tomb, and they should go and tell the disciples. Then the angel added that He had gone to Galilee and they would meet up with Him there.

 

[DOShea]

Cont’d from above.

Even the angel had been cheated form being an eyewitness.

Your own interpretation again. How do you know the angel didn’t witness this? The angel clearly knew He was risen.

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Well you have a slight problem here. The people who had the most interest in doing so are all accounted for elsewhere, cowering lest they meet a similar fate. The women had been been with them or in contact with them, so it would be rather silly for them to gather spices and head out to a tomb they knew to be empty. Are you asserting they did this for show purposes only? How do you explain them arranging that earthquake at just the right moment in time?

Then the soldiers that the women had not seen at the tomb,

We don’t know if they were seen or not. You are assuming something not stated in the text is true, and that is poor exegesis in anyone’s book.

…appeared at the house of the priests to say that the tomb was empty and of course, to get a good bribe with the advice to spread around that while they were sleeping, Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body. That’s the insult to the intelligence even of a moron, let alone to those who have a mind to think.

Please do a web search for “logical fallacies” and consult “Appeal to Ridicule.”

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice?

Even intelligent people act un-intelligently at times. How many crooked politicians can you name in history? How many people with credentials have falsified evidence - such as Haekel’s drawings of embryos or Piltdown man? The Pharisees had a vested interest here in assuring that no evidence of any resurrection be seen by anyone, as it would put them out of business.

How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping?

This assumes two unproven things; the tomb was robbed, and the Roman soldiers slept. What is your evidence that either occurred? We do know that Roman soldiers faced a penalty of death for sleeping on guard duty, and we know that there was more than one stationed there. For 24-hour coverage, it is the most logical assumption to believe they rotated in shifts, some sleeping, some wide awake. You yourself pointed out what an unusual circumstance it would have been for the Chief Priest and Pharisees to even go there in the first place, needing to violate law to do so. Do you imagine that was not taken into consideration by this Roman guard? That this wasn’t your everyday, backyard guard detail?

What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws.

Exactly. Since the soldiers would face summary execution for failing to guard the tomb or falling asleep. Thus you are left having to explain how the body got out of the tomb under those circumstances. Rather than face the possibility of the miraculous, you resort to an appeal that the accounts are all lies and no Roman guard was ever set. This might be possible except that Jesus did appear to others after the fact. So now you must explain how a mass hallucinatory event just so happened to follow a series of events that would not predict it. How do you account for that?

Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

That is factually incorrect. Please refer to Josephus Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64. I quote: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is lawful to call him a man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the prophets of God had foretold these and ten thousand other wonders about him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.’

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

Don’t approach the situation with poor assumptions and factual inaccuracies. Consider the whole body of evidence, such as that the people promoting this belief, Jesus’ disciples, went on to face lives of hardship and persecution, ultimately ending in their deaths specifically because they held to these beliefs. That would mean, if your assertions be true, they suffered a lifetime and died for the cause of a lie. Not just those who would have been directly involved, but then hundreds or thousands after them.

I’ll put the question directly to you - what lie would you suffer and die for?

 

[PJM]

Regular Member Join Date: December 25, 2008
Location: I live in Israel
Posts: 2,742
Religion: Jewish

A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

---

---

A Challenge to Our Intelligence ?]

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

Not at all Ben. Shalom!

The Jewish leaders knew full well that they ere facing a schism of significant proportions. Certainly they would have preferred “better timing” [But Christ was in charge of that component.] Pilot had no concern about what “the Jews” wanted. They had just forced him into making a decision that he wanted to avoid.

So faced with the reality of posting their own guards or having none [in which case they feared that His Body would or could be stolen] they simply did what they had to do.

The women did not go to the tomb [after the initial anointing] until early Sunday.] The guards “were asleep” and you think God lacks the power to do that?

In addition to “the women, the Apostles and, oh yea, “500 hundred other witnesses at one time” [1 Cor. 15:6] no witnesses were had.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

So all of a sudden now Ben, Jewish priest were sinless? Couldn’t, wouldn’t didn’t sin? Oh My!

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

No they didn’t forget they simply hoped to be able to convince them to permit an act of kindness.

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Ben, Ben, would the priest have paid the guards without checking? Get real!

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

Ben, you forgot to mention that when the women got their the guards were awake and afraid. And then there is that pesky issue of appearing to the women, to the deciple on the Road, to the Apostles and oh yea, to the 500 at one time. Darn I hate it when that happens.

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

See how much I love you been. I went and solved your pussel.

Shalom, Pat**

 

[John7]

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

More lies from Benny…this seems to be a congenital problem of yours ?

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar
but he that denys that Jesus is the Christ
he is antichrist

Pro 19:22
The lust of a man is his shame;
and a poor man is better than a liar

 

[aquabatix]

The best part about Ben’s opening post is that if you accept just a few possibilities, his post works the other way as well.

1. That a priest can sin and not follow the letter of the law always.
2. That instead of Jesus’ body being “stolen” or Him walking out, that He was indeed resurrected.

If you allow those things, then the rest doesn’t matter. Whether the women knew of the guards or not, if the guards were pressed into lying or the day of the month. All that matters is the He was resurrected and was seen again.

 

[Newbie2]

**Of the things you mention above, the most impressive are “the large number of witnesses.” I don’t need a large number or even a smal one, but if you point to me in your own NT one single eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus, you have succeeded to make a Catholic out of this Jew. Do you wanna try it? **

No, I didn’t say witnesses to his resurrection. I meant witnesses to seeing Him alive after his resurrection. I Cor. 15:6

So, I guess you’re going to mass tomorrow morning?

 

[VARC]

A Challenge to Our Intelligence

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

Well I wasn’t there. It’s not really hard to believe that a bunch of clerics disregarded the rules. Clerics (Christian and Jewish) do that sometimes if they feel they have a good reasons. Either you believe it or you don’t.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

You are assuming that the women would have been privy to the private conversation between Pilate and the clerics. It is possible and likely that those women weren’t privy to the conversation of Pilate and the preists.

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

Ben

I’m failing to see the point in all this. What’s so hard to believe about clerics spreading lies to protect their religious power. They have done that many times in all religions throughout history. Soldiers accepting bribes is not unheard of either.

If you don’t buy it then that’s your perogative. But I hardly find the story so outlandish as to label it an insult to one’s intelligence. Do you feel the same way about Ballaam’s talking donkey?Numbers Chapter 22:22