bobhope2112

During your previous debate on this subject, I took your harmonization and put the cited scriptures into a parallel grid in an attempt to better understand your argument. The date and time stamps are my own, but are intended to establish the chronology you proposed. This link would be better placed in the Peanut Gallery, but it's unclear of this debate is going to make it that far.

<http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/jason-gastrich/post-resurrection.chronology.2.html>

Edit: Added link to Gastrich/McHugh debate.

Jason Gastrich

Thanks, Bob. I haven't reviewed your graph extensively, but I remember you making it and it looks better now than it did before. If you don't mind, please cite me on the page somewhere, as that is my resurrection chronology.

Here is the original: http://jcsm.org/Apologetics/Post-Res...Chronology.htm

Sincerely,
Jason

bobhope2112

Is is unchanged since the last time you confirmed looking at it. There was an earlier version that you had also seen, so perhaps you're thinking of that. For reference it is here:

<http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/jason-gastrich/post-resurrection.chronology.html>

I would be happy to do that, but wanted to wait until you had a chance to review it and make sure that it accurately reflects your argument. Would you be able to do that?

Farrell Till

Do you seriously consider this to be a satisfactory solution to the problem? If so, would you care to defend your "grid" in a debate? If, yes, I will be ready to begin after McDonald and I have completed debating the Mary Magdalene problem. Meanwhile, perhaps you would like to tell us how you arrived at your conclusions that there were first, second, and third visits to the tomb. Did any of these people meet each other coming and going? If there were multiple visits like your "grid" arbitrarily claims, why couldn't "God" have inspired his chosen writers to have been clearer about it. In other words, why couldn't he have had John to say, "Mary Magdalene made her first visit to the tomb early on the first day of the week while it was yet dark...." Then why didn't he have Matthew say, "Late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene made a second visit to the tomb in the company of the other Mary," and so on?

Those of you who propose such arbitrary solutions as yours make your god look like a nincompoop who was incapable of guiding his inspired authors to write clear, coherent narratives. Since such ambiguity as you propose would iitself be a discrepancy, you will have done nothing to eliminate the problem of discrepancies in the Bible.

bobhope2112

No, I don't. I'm just attempting to document Jason's harmonization. It's my thinking that nothing does more to undermine his arguments than when he must provide them in detail. Although this might appear hostile to Jason, I should point out that it actually reinforces my intent to accurately reflect his claims.

Edit: Added third and fourth sentences.

Farrell Till

I have looked more carefully at your "grid," and I do hope that you will agree to debate here the chronology in it. While you are deciding this, would you please tell us how you arrived at your claim that the "first appearance of an angel" happened at 1:00 AM. You cited Matthew 28:2-4 as your source for this information.

Now please point us to the language in this text that would tell us that this happened at 1:00 AM. Please be specific.

You omitted Matthew 28:1 from your reference, but it says, "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.[/quote]

Is it your position that the first day of the week was "dawning" at 1:00 AM? If so, please explain. Explain to us also how you know that this happened at 1:00 AM and not, say, 2:00 AM or 2:18 AM. To try to harmonize verse 1 in Matthew 28 with your 1:00 AM scenario in verses 2-4, I suspect that you will resort to the "dischronologized narrative," which is one of Robert Turkel's arbitrary solutions that he often brings up when an obvious chronological problem is encountered in the Bible. I hope you do use it.

Would you like for me to point out other absurdities in your "harmonization"? I would be glad to do it, if you will agree to reply to me point by point.

Folks, I do hope [no pun intended] that bobhope will agree to defend his chronology "grid" here. If he does, you will see something that I have been telling my readers for decades. Inerrantists cannot "harmonize" the Bible--and certainly not the resurrection narratives--without resorting to flagrant speculation for which they can give no textual proof.

Farrell Till

Good, then a post that I just sent should be understood as a reflection on the absurdity of Gastrich's harmonization, since he indicated that he agrees with your harmonization grid.

Farrell Till

I want Gastrich to keep in mind that he has endorsed the "resurrection chronology" in Bob's grid. That admission will come back to haunt him when he finishes his other debate in "late October."

bobhope2112

It sounds like you had not yet read my previous response, so I'll not address these latest challenges. I don't think you would have made them if you understood my intent. One point about the grid, though, that should be reinforced:

The date and time columns are approximations intended more to establish the chronology than to actually identify the time these events are reported to have taken place. Just to be clear, I'll repeat tham I am not intending to harmonize the scriptures, I am just trying to document Jason's harmonization in some detail.

Farrell Till

You performed a good service by getting Gastrich to say that he endorsed your chronology.