Amaleq13

Could you give examples and determinations that an author's intent was different from the plain reading?

Meeting the challenge requires incorporating all details from all four versions of the story into a coherent whole.

The details that each story offers can, it should go without saying, only be determined by examining what each story offers.

You can't possibly meet the challenge by ignoring what one of the stories tells us.

You are confused. The correct version should read:

"Reconcile these accounts without changing the details of any version."

Matthew presents an unaltered version of Mark's story? On what planet?

Where? You suggested that the angel's answer referred to the fear the women experienced upon seeing that the tomb was empty. We've seen that this denied by the story because the angel invites them to confirm that Jesus is gone after he answered.

No, they do not. Seriously, have you read the story lately? The angel speaks to them but they do not respond.

Given the angel's answer, their "interaction" was witnessing the previously described events and reacting in fear.

You aren't paying attention. The comparison was with the inference that they saw the angel even though the text never explicitly states that they did. Being talked to by an angel is clearly not an explicit statement that the angel was seen yet it is another implication from a plain reading of the text.

You must not have read the entire post because I made it clear why this is irrelevant. The angel invites them to check to confirm that the body is gone after he gave his "answer". Their fear, therefore, cannot be the result of seeing an empty tomb.

That only comes after what each account tells us has been established.

Because you are currently denying one of the details you will need to incorporate. The time to refer to the other accounts is when you've accepted what each story tells and attempt to reconcile all the details. If you are allowed to ignore difficult details, it isn't much of a challenge.

Establishing the details of each account is a separate endeavor from reconciling them. I thought that was obvious.

The story doesn't describe the events resulting in an open tomb as occuring prior to the arrival of the women. The story describes the women approach, then the spectacular events, then an angel "answering" their fearful response, then he invites them to look inside and confirm Jesus' body is gone. The clear implication of the text is that they witnessed the described events and were afraid.

Atheos

In case anyone's interested, I have created my own personal treatment of Dan Barker's Easter Challenge. I used the list I had compiled above and modified it considerably over the last couple of days. As well, I went back and revisited the original text of the Easter Challenge and inserted details from I Corinthians 15 into the mix. Also, I believe that I've done a decent job of sorting the requisite details into the most palatable chronology with the least number of glaring contradictions.

At the end of the list of details I offer my thoughts concerning various problems with the descrepancies.

I did this for my own enlightenment. I hope others find it useful.

-Atheos

buckshot23

Sure I could.
Becoming obvious that this is fruitless. I have incorporated all of the details it is your wooden interpretation of the text that is causing the problem. The "skeptics vacuum" was not available for Matthew to write his account. I find it reasonable to use the other texts to establish a consistency.
Yes and also in reconciling them I should be allowed to refer to the others to establish the plausability of my interpretation. Remember Matthew wasn't written in a vacuum, a point you have failed to acknowledge.
I haven't ignored anything.
The details are not excluded.

Well they use different words. Thats for sure.
I later granted that even if they had not seen that the body was missing yet the fact that the stone was rolled away could be enough to cause shock.

You ignore what I said later.:huh:
Of course they do. To listen is a verb, the angel spoke and the women listened.
In the "skeptics vacuum" maybe. The angel responded to some sort of reaction from the women. I put forward that seeing a stone rolled away that they thought would be a barrier would be shocking enough to require a response. Remember all other accounts have the stone rolled away prior to the women arriving. You can disallow this if you like but it allows for my interpretation whether you admit it or not.

:huh: I suppose I cannot respond because I would have to refer to other texts.

You must not have read my entire post. Where I said this..
So your point is meaningless until you can establish that this would NOT be a valid reason for being upset in some way requiring a response from the angel.

:huh::banghead: I am not ignoring anything. I have offered a possible interpretation which you don't like. I do not have to incorporate your interpretation of the text into a reconciliation. Mine is allowable and an unbiased person(if any exist) should see it as plausible.
In which you have not done. The facts are not what you interpret them as.
If the stone was rolled away in the presense of the women why did they not see the risen Jesus walking out of the tomb? The gospels do teach a physical resurrection by the way. I will tell you why they didn't because it didn't happen in their presense. The stone was rolled away prior to them arriving as we have 3 other witnesses establishing that fact.
At this point I am going to have to make a point that I have tried to respond to all of your points. You have not provided me with the same courtesy. You skipped questions ignored comments and if you want to continue I ask that you try and respond to all of my points instead of cherry picking. The fact that the women would be shocked to find a pre-rolled stone requiring a response from the angel is an example of cherry picking. Tell me why they would not be shocked to find the stone rolled away? Don't ignore it a third time.

Amaleq13

Then do so or withdraw the assertion.

You continue to deny the clearly implied detail that the women had witnessed the events described just before the angel's "answer" and you continue to lack any substantive argument supporting your denial of this clearly implied detail.

Reconciling them requires referring to details of all of the accounts. Referring to the details of all of the accounts requires listing all the details (implicit and explicit) from each account. Listing the details from each account requires that each be considered as though it was the only available version of the story. That is the only rational way to establish what each author tells us.

You are not doing this. Instead, you are attempting to identify the details as you create your reconciliation. It should be obvious that this is not a legitimate approach to meeting the challenge. The details of each account are dictated by the text of each account not a desire for the accounts to agree.

I see no need to acknowledge the obvious and only more so when it is irrelevant to anything I've written. This vacuous statement does not allow you to ignore clear implications of a text.

You are ignoring and excluding the clearly implied detail that the women had just witnessed the events described prior to the angel's answer.

Look, I completely understand that considering each account independently is difficult when you're used to attempting to understand them as a group but the former is what is required in order to meet the challenge.

Matthew's account also adds many details to the original story. Adding details constitutes an alteration of the original story.

"To listen" is clearly not the same as "to respond". Sloppy use of language makes a rational discussion difficult.

The clear implication of the story is that the reaction was fear.

What you have not put forward is a rational justification for ignoring the meaning of the specific word chosen by the author and selecting only this particular detail from the preceding text or ignoring the plain meaning of the story and pushing it back in time before their arrival. Your desire to meet the challenge is certainly not a rational justification for altering what Matthew's story tells us.

I have presented the basis for the interpretation. The plain meaning of the text and the specific vocabulary choice of the author clearly imply that the women witnessed the events preceding the angel's answer.

Can you honestly say that this would not be your understanding if Matthew were the only version you knew?

According to every Christian commentary I've read, the removal of the stone was not to allow Jesus to rise but to allow witnesses to see that his body was gone.

None of the Gospels indicate that the stone was moved so that Jesus could leave. In fact, one account clearly indicates he was able to enter locked rooms so one would presume that leaving a blocked tomb would not require removal of the stone.

I haven't denied that this would have been a shocking discovery but I have pointed out, repeatedly, that this is not what the story tells us. The story describes the women approach, then the spectacular events, then an angel "answering" their fearful response, then he invites them to look inside and confirm Jesus' body is gone. The clear implication of the text is that they witnessed the described events and were afraid.

buckshot23

We are going around in circles and I find no reason to continue this. Whether you accept this interpretation is irrelevant to whether it is allowable by ALL of the texts under discussion. Thank you for taking the time in discussing this.

Amaleq13

I appreciate your participation but I continue to be genuinely interested in your answer to this question:

Can you honestly say that this would not be your understanding if Matthew were the only version you knew?

buckshot23

If Matthew were written in a vacuum it would seem that that would be the implication. However it wasn't.

Amaleq13

Assuming that, in your mind, "written in a vacuum" is the same as "the only version", thank you for the response.

Roland

If Mary Magdalene made TWO trips to the tomb - the one alone in John and the one with others in the Synoptics - why is she still debating with the two women in Mark before they get there about who is going to remove the stone? According to this scenario, she already knew from first hand experience not only that the tomb was open but that Jesus' body was gone.

That doesn't make any sense.

buckshot23

Since I made a concession I think it fair for you to consider the same. If Matthew is complementing Mark (of course assuming Mark was first) do think it possible that Matthew was supplementing Mark and that my version could be what Matthew intended?