I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals.
Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No". The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.
Dan Sheppard: I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals. Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No". The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.
Argh, argh, argh.
How to Ask for Help | Logos Wiki | My Machine Specs | My Blog
Rosie!!!! That is quite enough!!!!! ROFL
William Bingham: Rosie!!!! That is quite enough!!!!! ROFL
Hey, Dan made the pun first. I couldn't help but reply to it.
Jack Caviness: If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.
If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.
The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...
"Upon a life I did not live, Upon a death I did not die, Another's life, another's death, I stake my whole eternity"
Horatius Bonar
Simon Pleasants: Jack Caviness: If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines. The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...
Very good!
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install
Jack Caviness: Simon Pleasants: Jack Caviness: If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines. The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase... Very good!
With primary forum guidance being how to use Logos Bible Software, friendly discussions about hermeneutical and theological research using Logos Bible Software seems appropriate. Thankful for breadth and depth of library material available in Logos; likewise Thankful for resources being developed plus more suggestions.
Caution: good idea to put out of way before following other locked "hijacking" replies that helped seal some forum guidelines. Found thought provoking Math in one reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6836/56564.aspx#56564
Could add 0 x 9 + 1 = 1 to 2nd list
For 3rd list, could add 0 x 9 + 8 = 8
and 987654321 x 9 - 1 = 8888888888
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Logos 7 Beta Free Support
Jack Caviness:Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?
Since the phrase can be translated "you have a guard" or "Take a guard" and the translations are pretty divided...the relevant passage seems to be the one above...this provides the context for what is being addressed....they must be Roman Guards....right?
The commentaries seem to agree.
PS: this was an interesting study....thanks!
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Fascinating discussion, as I never even thought the guard was anything but Roman.
I've pasted the significant portions of this thread into my Logos passage notes!
I really appreciated the insight I haven't found this anywhere else. Would you have the reference and the exact quote?
Carey G Pearson, thank you for this quote I haven't found it anywhere else. Could you give me a footnoted reference and exact quote please! Jim Berglund pstjim@gmail.com
My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]
BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke.
The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad.
One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards?
The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]
David Ames: My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad] BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke. The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad. One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards? The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]
"Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.
"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."
Denise: David Ames: My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad] [[Not a salvation issue!]] "Not a salvation issue" ???? or !!!!
David Ames: My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad] [[Not a salvation issue!]]
[[Not a salvation issue!]]
"Not a salvation issue" ???? or !!!!
If they were Roman Soldiers or Jewish Temple Guards is not, IMHO, a salvation issue.
My thoughts on when the guards were placed is no later than 2 hours after sunset Friday evening and that they opened the tomb to see that the Body was still there and that a least two of the guards knew Jesus by sight [He spent much time in the Temple that last week] so that they could id what body was there. [just IMHO]
I think that the high priest ran to Pilate as soon as he heard who got the body.
Some old forum posts if this helps:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/32250/240352.aspx
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/49224/364747.aspx
Denise: "Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.
Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
If the day of the preparation is what we call Friday a simple reading would call the next day Saturday. BUT Jesus died about 3 in the afternoon on Friday [the way most believe it happened – others believe He died on Wednesday or Thursday but this discussion uses Friday] The next day would be Saturday except that the day ended at Sunset [as seen by at least half the Jews of that time] so the next day would cover Friday Evening. That’s why I think [rather than know or believe] that “the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate” some time before 7 pm Friday evening. [Not waiting until 7 am Saturday morning] So the tomb could have been guarded as soon as 8 pm Friday night. [IMHO] [[Just defending my stand on this. How did Matthew define the next day? Friday evening or Saturday Sunrise or the Midnight between the two?]]
Well, David, I'm impressed with your helpfulness to the writer of Matthew. Although, a simple reading and the greek seems to demonstrate the writer is intent on the chronology (next immediate day after Mary and other Mary sat looking at the tomb).
I'm always impressed with the length and detail of the gospel writers' efforts. Try just copying a chapter ... it's pretty tedious. Then imagine poor light, ink all over the place, and cleaned material just for your first draft, much less edits.
From a secular point of view, the writers were not likely amateurs. They knew their business. Then if you believe in the Holy Spirit's participation, you have to assume the writing was as intended. What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).
My opinion, of course!
Denise: My opinion, of course!
I always respect your opinion. [Or try to anyway]
But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]
The Gospel writers don't give the times so, as you state:
Denise: What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).
David Ames: But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]
Interesting question. My marriage is an international one. And so, 'next' is always a major issue. Next week switches at Saturday 11:59, or Sunday 11:59? And tomorrow at 12:01 is always greeted with laughter ... today or tomorrow?? At work, next year for accountants was different from next year, for marketing.
In the NT, if you're curious, there's a bunch of tomorrows. But they bounce around by greek expression (3), and author (narritives tend to vary from epistles). It's hard to find a tomorrow (conceivably jewish) that's today (greek). And given the ubiquity of greek culture, it's hard to imagine the Matthew writer playing games with the diaspora (greek readers).
But interesting patterns.