sschlichter

at one point the angel was sitting on the stone, perhaps this angel or perhaps another was sitting in the tomb at some point with at least one other angel.

yes, I do not know the proximity of the guards to the tomb.

yes

a group of women, 'led' by Mary M

they held on to his feet and he told them not to touch him. do not touch me is not the same as I am a spirit who cannot be touched.

yes, he was. no, he did not ignore it, he was fishing at tiberius just after a week later.

he went with John but John ran faster. John got there first, but peter went in first.

yes

apparently, she did.

we would need to understand a little about Witness A and B to know whether they are conflicting. Are they talking about the same timeframe? also, it might help to know some context about witness A and B. If witness A is from the sahara dessert and it rained for 2 minutes, and witness B is from Seattle and it rained for 2 minutes then the difference might just be perspective. also, it might help to know what purpose they have in supplying the information. If the question of Witness B is whether there is enough water to survive then he might answer, yes, it was raining. If the question of witness A is do I need a raincoat, then he might answer, it was dry.

your question is very telling to me. you seem to be unable to untangle your perspective from those of the authors. You bring your presuppostions and place them on the text unapologetically.

All I got was a list of questions. Still waiting for the contradictions.

Amaleq13

The plain meaning of the text is certainly relevant to any attempt to meet the challenge. And the plain meaning of Matthew 28:8 is that Mary responded with "fear and great joy" to the angelic message as she departed the empty tomb. Your narrative explicitly contradicts this. Calling the plain meaning of the text "personal views" is simply specious.

As the link clearly shows, you were trying to argue for doubt on Mary's part and offered only references to doubt by the disciples for support. Whether you admit it or not and whether you understand it or not, that certainly constitutes an attempt (logically flawed) to transfer the disciples' doubt to Mary.

Nothing Mark writes changes the fact that Matthew explicitly states that Mary departed "with fear and great joy" after hearing the message. This constitutes a detail you must include according to the rules of the challenge. Instead, your narrative contradicts it.

I described the chronology of John 20 and you failed to offer an alternate. The chronology of John 20 constitutes a detail you must include according to the rules of the challenge. Instead, your narrative contradicts it.

Your narrative continues to fail on both points. :wave:

sschlichter

why? please explain the significance of the local shaking of the earth and why it is necessary that it be included in every account of the resurrection.

Keith&Co.

The earthquake happened for the express purpose of rolling open a single grave. It's a mark of just how dramatic that opening was, that the angel didn't just get a prybar and a couple of bricks.

If anyone mentioned 'an angel shook the earth to open the tomb' between the earthquake and anyone else's writing their memoirs, it would be important to mention in any account of the day. I mean, the hand of God is shown, further proof of the divinity of Jesus, of his being the messiah! That wasn't just any earthquake, even if we didn't know it at the time, that was part of the Resurrection!

Can you suggest any reason at all that other accounts of the day would skip over mentioning what an angel did? What makes it unimportant, and of negligable value to the narrative?

sschlichter

the immensity of all the other events makes it tangential to the purposes of the authors that skipped it. An angel moved a stone is big news when it is the only news. it pales when compared to the raising of the dead. you will notice that this detail was included by all and Paul makes it very clear that it is central to our (mine and his) beleifs.

The reason is stated by John (21:25)

There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Keith&Co.

Yes, but the challenge isn't about your core beliefs. It's about the various disagreeing narratives.
But that rock wasn't Jesus' doing. That 'reason' is not entirely on point.

And if it's really a tangential detail, why did one author include it?

sschlichter

Who was Matthew's immediate audience and what was his purpose in writing the gospel? Were there any themes he maintained?

Keith&Co.

As we don't know who wrote the gospel nor when, it's a wee bit difficult to answer such a question.

But are you saying that the record of the events of that day were shaped towards the audience, vice recording history for the purpose of posterity?

sschlichter

you may not.

these are not contradictions. There is an agenda on the part of all the gospel authors. John clearly states his agenda:

(John 19:35) And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe.

I did not say they were objective reporters. They are not objective at all. They firmly beleived what they wrote to the point of death. This has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Facts are presented in such a way to maek a point or sway someone. This is different from not being facts. If you have 1 million facts, then you choose the ones that will best tell your story and support your purpose. You did not tell me what you had for lunch today. not because it was not true, but because it did not support your agenda.

Net2004

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTMillerCrimes2.html