Amaleq13

That is what the story says:

And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it...(YLT)

To my knowledge, no rule of Greek allows one to interpret this passage as indicating, contrary to the apparent meaning of the text, that the earthquake took place before they arrived.

And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek;(28:5, YLT)

According to the Blue Letter Bible on the word translated as "answering" (ie apokrinomai, emphasis mine):

1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer
2) to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer

It is obviously the second definition that is relevant here. The angel's "answer" refers to the preceding events that the women just witnessed.

I've amended nothing. I have only reworded it because you appeared to have difficulty accurately understanding the original. I suspect, however, that Iasion is correct and this appearance of confusion is entirely disingenuous. You'll have to find someone else with whom to play your game. :wave:

Patriot7

Your interpretation creates more problems then it solves. If you're right and the women were eyewitnesses to the earthquake, the stone rolling away and Jesus rising from the tomb, then why did they even need an answer from the angel? They just saw it happen!! You're only proving Gastrich's answer here Amaleq13! The angel would not have told them....

“Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”

Why would the angel tell the women "He is not here", unless the events happened before the women got to the tomb? Gastrich's interpretation is correct - the earthquake happens, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive at the tomb and ask the angel what happened.



Do you understand what you're saying here? In essence you're saying that Dan Barker didn't really mean what he wrote - that you know what Dan meant to write! This is non-sense. If you're arguing for a clear and literal interpretation of the words of this passage in Matthew, without mind to the other Gospel accounts, (which is what Barker's challenge is remember), then why must you change and reword the requirements of the challenge? Why can't we simply take Barker's requirements on face value? Why must we reword them? So that they fit your understanding? Don't we lose the meaning that Dan intended then?


As it is generally true that people perceive the world, not as it is but as they are - the charge of disingenuousness, in light of this continued editing of Barker's requirements, makes perfect sense.

Should it not make you even the least bit suspicious that so much intellectual stock was placed in Barker's challenge from the beginning? Not just by yourself, but DTC, Toto and others? And when an answer was offerred, the method used to discredit the answer, was to change the requirements of the challenge? To me, that reveals, it was never a challenge at all in your minds - but simply a place to hide intellectually. Your tactic reminds me of the old Iraqi press information minister.

Toto

This is probably futile, but you have added something crucial to force this all work out. You have the women seeing Jesus rise - but this is not in the narrative. (You may be thinking of the heretical Gospel of Peter, where a crowd sees Jesus come out of the tomb?) The women come to the tomb, experience the earthquake, and see the stone roll away. If they actually saw an identifiable Jesus rise and go up to heaven, maybe they wouldn't need the angel to explain it to them (and the audience). But in this version, the women do not see Jesus - only an empty tomb, and need the angel to explain that he rose, as opposed to someone taking the body or another explanation.

We know what Dan Barker meant. You know. You just think that you have found a loophole in his question that allows you to drive a truck through it.

Barker's challenge has a long history. Many have tried to solve it, and can't. It only shows that the Bible is not inerrant, not that Christianity is totally false. (And solving it would not show that Christianity is true, only that a few authors did manage to get their stories straight.)

The challenge is only a starting point for attacking fundamentalism, not something that anyone has any great intellectual stock in, except as an exercise.

But have a nice day. I too need to bow out of this. :wave:

Amaleq13

I'm going to play another round since I've got some down-time before a meeting.

The answer to your question is rather obvious given the angel's response. The women appeared to be afraid since they had just seen an angel descending as an earthquake rolled the stone from the tomb.

I would also note that you have not provided any basis, linguistic or otherwise, for rejecting the apparent implication of the word apokrinomai that the angel was referring to events the women had just witnessed nor have you offered any linguistic support for interpreting the text contrary to the plain meaning so as to indicate that the events described took place prior to the arrival of the women.

Yes and it isn't what you want me to say. I'm saying that you appeared to have difficulty comprehending the requirements and appeared to need them reworded to assist your understanding.

I have not changed any of the requirements but I have reworded them to address your apparent inability to comprehend them as originally written.

"We" can because we understand what they are. You apparently cannot because you don't.

I reworded them because you appeared to have difficulty comprehending them as they were written.

No, so that you might correct your apparent misunderstanding.

No, "we" already understood the intended meaning. What should be lost due to the rewording, however, is your misunderstanding of it. Unfortunately, you appear to be more interested in retaining your misunderstanding than accepting offers of clarification or offering a substantive argument.

Diogenes the Cynic

I can't find any sense in this at all. Matthew clearly says the women FIRST went to the tomb and THEN there was an earthquake. It then says the earthquake happened BECAUSE the angel had descended from Heaven and rolled away the stone. That means Matthew has the entire dog and pony show happening chronologically AFTER the women went to the tomb.

I can't figure out why you think it's significant that the angel would explain to them what was going on (why WOULDNT he?) but I think it should be mentioned that Gastrich inserts John 20:1-2 between the earthquake and the angel's answer to the women. i'm going to quote all the way to 20:18 because I want to comment on it:

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.(YLT)

After having Mary M. tell Peter and the BD about the rock being rolled away, Gastrich then goes back to Matthew and says that Mary and the other Mary went back to the tomb, somehow outrunning Peter and the BD who John says immediately sprinted to the tomb (it literally says they ran) and that's when they saw the angel sitting on the rock and telling them what was happening.

That's where Gastrich leaves off (thereby omitting every single appearance of Jesus unless the linked page is simply incomplete as I suspect it must be). What he does present still presents the following problems and questions:

1. He ignores the fact that Matthew says the earthquake happened after the women went to the tomb.
2. Why didn't Mary M. see the angel sitting on the rock the first time she went to the tomb? If she saw that the stone had been rolled away, then she had to have seen the stone itself. If she saw the stone, how could she miss a glowing angel sitting on top of it?
3. How did Mary M and "the other Mary" make it back to the tomb before two sprinting disciples?
4. Why didn't the disciples see any angels when they got to the tomb and even looked inside?

The deeper you get into both accounts the more the questions multiply. Since Gastrich claims that the women's first exchange with an angel happened sometime after they beat the disciples back to the tomb but before the disciples themselves arrived, let's look at some more of Matthew's account:

And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek;

6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying;

7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.'

8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;

9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then saith Jesus to them, `Fear ye not, go away, tell to my brethren that they may go away to Galilee, and there they shall see me.' (Mt. 28:5-10)

How much of this is supposed to have occurred before Peter and the BD got to the tomb? All of it? Some of it? Gastrich doesn't say (at least not on the page available to us), but it still raises more questions either way.

John says that Mary is weeping outside the tomb after the disciples have left (without seeing any angels) and then she sees two angels in the tomb. (is one of them the same angel who was sitting on the stone and who presumably had already spoken to her or is it two different angels entirely?)

She says that "they have taken my Lord and I don't know where they have put him."

Now wait a minute. Didn't one of the angels (according to Gastrich's chronology) already tell her that Jesus had risen and she should go to Galilee? Hadn't she and the other Mary already run away from the tomb "with great joy" and run smack into Jesus himself? So why is MM now sobbing outside the tomb and telling the angels that she doesn't know what's become of her Lord? And the John has her seeing Jesus AGAIN, not recognizing him and not remembering that she's already seen him.

Are you starting to see what a mess this is, Patriot? Just from the very incomplete chronology on the linked page, we can aleady see that Mary Magdalene would have to have had the eyesight of Stevie Wonder, the foot speed of Carl Lewis and the memory of a goldfsh.

And that's without even going into Mark and Luke which present even more encounters with angels, first appearances of Jesus, etc.

These accounts are simply not reconcilable with even a modicum of intellectual honesty or academic dignity.

Kosh

methinks the obtuseness is deliberate.

buckshot23

No it doesn't. Where is the word FIRST in the text?
It doesn't mention when that earthquake took place. Only whenever the angel did his thing. This could have been before the women even woke. Here is the text...
I think the author of Matthew is just saying how the stone was rolled away not when it actually happened. Recounting it. Luke 24:2 supports that the stone was already rolled away when the women arrived.
As does John 20:1
And Mark 16:4
The stone was rolled away long before the women showed up. The only hint of it being otherwise is from Matthew and given the rest of the gospels it becomes an unjustified interpretation in my view. There is no hint for instance that the women saw the gaurds cower in fear and "become like dead men" in any of the texts.

Amaleq13

The story clearly first describes the women approaching the tomb. The story then describes an earthquake, descending angel, rolling stone, and fainting guards. The story then depicts the angel "answering" (a word that, absent a preceding question in the text, refers to preceding events) the women's fearful reaction to what they had just seen.

What is unjustified is the notion that the claims in other versions of the story allow one to change the plain meaning of what Matthew's author wrote. The plain meaning of the story has the women witnessing the earthquake, etc. and the specific vocabulary of the angel reinforces that plain meaning.

buckshot23

Yup. So?
So? Quite allowable to describe things in this way. Bottom line is Matthew doesn't have "first" then "second" then "third". Matthew was expounding upon the other accounts about how the stone was rolled away not when.
Yes the startlement of the stone being rolled away and no body of Jesus being there. Imagine going to a relatives grave and finding it dug up and the body missing. I would be startled. Maybe you wouldn't.
What is unjustified is the wooden interpetation skeptics place on the gospels. Matthew does not say the women witnessed anything other than an angel and an already rolled away stone. Where does it say otherwise? Where does it even hint that the women witnessed the gaurds?
Like I have noted it seems most reasonable to interpret it in my way considering the other accounts and my interpretation is logically allowable. Bottom line is that Matthew does not state that the women saw the stone being rolled away. You just cannot gloss over that fact.

Roland

So if Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses, how come those eyewitnesses didn't recall any of the quotes attributed to Jesus in John's gospel? Why do they only remember the sayings found in Mark and Matthew? Not one of them remembered Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth and the life" and all the other amazing "I am" pronouncements? And why does Luke, after all his exhaustive researches, line up chronologically with Matthew and Mark and not at all with John?