Patriot7

What more are you looking for? Barker's says - tell me what happened and use the Bible. How did Gastrich not use the Bible in providing his chronology?

I suspect the principles Gastrich uses in arriving at his interpretation are more of the issue here, then the actual interpretation. What principles of Biblical interpretation are you using? Please list them.

post tenebras lux

I doubt that Barker is insisting on people who accept his challenge using a specific set of (Barker approved) 'principles of Biblical interpretation'.

Therefore, would suggest it much more sensible for you to explain your 'principles of Biblical interpretation'.

After all, you're the one who thinks that the challenge is defeatable. Can I assume that it was by using your 'principles of Biblical interpretation' that you reached this conclusion?

Patriot7

In what way are you suggesting the challenge was defeated? Or is even defeatable?

As Mr. Barker's background is similar to cognacs, I just find it hard to believe that his easter challenge is couched in an inability to arrive at the same chronolgy as Mr. Gastrich.

Toto

Patriot7 - you are writing as if you have not read the full challenge. The challenge involves showing how all of the details of the 4 Easter events can be worked into one narrative, not just to produce something that you think happened.

Details are here: http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

kais

Dan Barker (ffrf.org): "The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted."

DtC already explained how Gastrich's response violated this condition. To wit: "Matthew says that the earthquake happened and an angel dropped from the sky after Mary M and 'the other Mary' got to the tomb. The jcsm page...say[s] that [the earthquake] happened before [Mary M and 'the other Mary'] got [to the tomb]..." (emphasis added, post #340)

Put another way: "[T]he detail that Gastrich omitted is the fact that Matthew says the women were already at the tomb when the earthquake happened and the angel dropped out of the sky." (post #353)

I'm hoping this reminder will help you move past this point in the discussion.

Patriot7

No. I've read the full challenge. I think you may have your own easter challenge in mind, but strictly talking about Barker's I think Gastrich answered it completely.

Let's look at what Barker wrote and then please point out to me where we disagree....

He then goes on to give a few qualifications to this request....


So we can summarize Barker's challenge:

1. Explain what happened at easter. (How? He tells us....)
2. Write a chronological narrative.
3. Is Barker demanding proof? (No)
4. Does the narrative have to present a perfect picture? (No)
5. Can it omit any Biblical details, specifically the one's Barker lists? (No)
6. Barker lists #5 as his most important condition. Thereby imposing a value structure on his list of conditions.


What detail did Gastrich omit? I understand he didn't list all the details in his answer. But that's not the challenge. That maybe YOUR easter challenge - but not Barkers.

I look forward to your reply.

Patriot7

I thought I had too many posts to respond to already. Why do you keep writing to me?

Please clarify using Mr. Gastrich's chronology and Matthew - NOT DTC's federal indictment of someone's charachter, who isn't even posting here.

Toto

At this point, I have to ask if you are posting in good faith, or if you are playing games. You admit that Gastrich did not list all of the details in his answer. How is this different from omitting some of them?

I eagerly anticipate a clarification.

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you serious with this statement? That's exactly the challenge. To list every event that happens in all four resurrection accounts from beginning to end, in chronological order, without leaving anything out. You might have noticed that the portion of Gastrich's attempt which is viewable on your linked page leaves out all the appearance and the ascension. Either you don't understand the challenge, you haven't read your own linked page, or you don't really have any honest intentions in this thread. Which is it?

Joe Bloe

But you had just said, in that very post, just before this statement, that

Look carefully at #5 in your summary again
And, as you note,
You yourself quote Barker as saying
So, how do you come to the conclusion that listing all the details is not part of Barker's challenge?