Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Ankerberg: In this part of our debate weĺre going to examine the questions, ôCan we trust
Matthewĺs account about the Roman guards? Do the New Testament writers conflict in describing
who went to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning? Did the women see angels or men at the tomb,
and how many angels did they see? And were the angels inside or outside the tomb?ö These
and other questions will be discussed tonight, and I hope that youĺll listen very carefully
to this important information.
>>Naland: And I'd say this to the people here and watching this program, when this program's
over, you know, go home, turn off the TV, and what you do is you take the Bible -- whatever
version you want -- and you put it side by side. And that's all I ask. You take the last
chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, put them side by side, compare them, see what
they say, and I believe, if you have eyes to see, you will see that there are some incredible
contradictions there which lead you to ask, "Did anyone really know what happened?"
>>Montgomery: Listen, I love it! That exactly what people ought to do, and when they see
that these various narrators are not presentČing the identical stories, ask one question: "Are
they complementaČry or are they contradictory?" They will turn out to be as compleČmentary
as four witnessČes on the stand to any traffic accident. And they point to the fact that
you don't have collusion here. If these people all said exactly the same thing...My gosh!
When I have somebody on the stand, on the other side, and this guy says exactly the
same thing as the previous witness, wonderČful! I want to raise the contingency fee. I'm going
to win. Because this was done by collusion.
>>Naland: All right. But there's a differČence between slight disagreement and apples and
oranges.
>>Montgomery: These are not apples and oranges. You yourself have agreed that it's perfectly
possible, for example, to have the Roman guard there at one time and the women there at another...
>>Naland: No, I don't agree to that.
>>Montgomery: There is no metaphysical... Well, is there a metaphysiČcal necessity
that Romans be there all the time?
>>Naland: I don't accept Matthew's descripČtion, so I see no evidence for the guard.
>>Montgomery: Well, that's a problem, isn't it? Because Matthew, according to Papias and
Polycarp was there, while you weren't!