Roland

The major discrepancy in the resurrection accounts is who told Mary M that Jesus had risen. The synoptics all point to her learning that info. from an angel (or two angels or a young man in a white robe).

Yet, John portrays it in a much different way, with her assuming that the body has been stolen until Jesus himself sets the record straight.

buckshot23

Before getting into these other questions are you conceding that my interpretation on this issue is logically allowable? I am open to discuss all of these issues "pero" I would like to button this one up first.

Amaleq13

"So" that is the story as it plainly reads. To suggest that it should be read otherwise requires evidence beyond your personal desire to have it agree with your beliefs.

The bottom line is that the author doesn't have to explicitly state what is plainly evident. That such a bizarre requirement is clearly based on your desire to alter the plain meaning in accordance with your beliefs only serves to render it less credible.

Unfortunately for this imaginative interpolation into the story, the author does not describe the women boldly passing the angel and seemingly dead guards to peer into the tomb. That you feel compelled to fabricate such a ridiculous scene to justify ignoring what the story plainly states speaks volumes. Only one of us is taking the text as it actually exists.

There is nothing "wooden" about rejecting attempts to change what the story plainly states so that it better accommodates your beliefs.

You either did not read or did not understand what was shared about the author's choice of the word apokrinomai in post #386 above.

There is nothing reasonable or logical about ignoring the evidence of the specific language chosen by the author to tell his story. That this author's version of the story conflicts with other versions on this point is unfortunate for those who would wish it otherwise but that wish is hardly a rational justification for ignoring what the story plainly states and the author's choice of words requires.

Since it is strongly implied by a plain reading of the text and essentially required by the author's vocabulary choice, one does not have to "gloss over" the absence of an explicit assertion to obtain an accurate understanding. Your interpretation, OTOH, clearly requires that those factors be ignored in favor of your religious beliefs about the text and it goes without saying that such an approach is only credible to those who share your faith.

Roland

Actually, nothing is ever reconcilable with John. He is so far out there that he renders either his account as fictitious or all four of them as such (I tend to think it's the latter).

buckshot23

Hmm I am not sure if you answered my question.:huh:

buckshot23

I am suggesting a possibility and nothing more. I am not excluding your interpretation as being a possibility. I think I have substantiated that my interpretation is allowable logically and not because of any "personal desire" I may have. If matthew used mark it seems reasonable that matthew would explain further how the stone was rolled away. Where Mark has just the stone being rolled away Matthew has an explanation of how it was rolled away. Also given that all other accounts state emphatically that the stone was already rolled away when the women arrived at the tomb. If Matthew used Mark it seems unreasonable that Matthew would get it so wrong.
Have you ever told a story and included background information "spliced" into it to provide background information. I am 100% (maybe 99.99% certain you have.
Just because it is listed first does not mean he is providing a stepwise listing of events. The only thing that is bizarre is you do not allow Matthew to do the same thing that you probably do every day.
Ah the story doesn't describe the women being present when the stone was rolled away either. I believe the gaurds were gone when the women arrived. The angel could have came and rolled the stone away and either came back to tell the women what happened or hung out until they arrived.
Speaks volumes of what? The story plainly says the women saw an angel and a tomb with no body. Which happens to agree with the other accounts. The story tells how the stone was rolled away (where Mark simply has the women finding a pre-rolled stone.)

Again what does the story "plainly" say? The women saw an angel and an empty tomb. Matthew doesn't say when the stone was rolled away at all.
Of course they are reacting to something! The empty tomb.:huh:
Matthew did not write his gospel in a vacuum. If you take all of the gospel accounts of this specific issue together at face value my interpretation is perfectly reasonable despite your condemnation of it.
Your opinion. Again you do the same thing everyday in providing background information in things you describe. Not always listing everything in chronological order is common. It is not allowable by skeptics for this to even be a possibility for the author of Matthew. Thus the wooden label.
"essentially"? :huh:

Gloss over that fact all you like but it is not stated and all of your protestations will never obscure that fact.
We are all biased and I admit that. The fact that you do not find the explanation credible is hardly evidence of anything. It certainly doesn't invalidate my interpretation one iota. Maybe people who share my faith give the account a fair reading while people on your side of the fence do not. In this instance you do not.

Kosh

Mods... shouldn't this discussion (the easter challenge) be split off into a different thread?

robto

According to John Wenham, Easter Enigma, "often in the NT, the aorist tense needs to be rendered by an English pluperfect." So he treats 28:2-4 as a sort of flashback: "And behold there had been a great earthquake...."

Does Barker know of Wenham's book, or has he ever responded to it?

buckshot23

Wenham must be a conservative, thus invalidating his opinion.:huh:

Amaleq13

You are suggesting how you would prefer the story to read despite the fact that it is contrary to a plain reading of the passage.

The entire basis for your interpretation appears to be an a priori assumption that the Gospels cannot contradict one another. There is no rational basis for such an assumption.

The author of Matthew has changed the story attributed to Mark and the scene at the tomb is just one of many such alterations.

Matthew's alteration of the story suggests either he thought Mark got it wrong or the notion of "wrong" is inappropriate for the stories.

That is the plain reading of the text and you've offered nothing but a personal preference based on an a priori assumption to support it.

The strength of your faith and your willingness to allow it to guide your reading of the text.

No, it does not. It is strongly implied that they saw the angel but it is never explicitly described. Your willingness to accept the implications of the text appears to vary according to your faith. The second assumption, however, appears to be denied by the text since the angel informs the women that Jesus is not in the tomb.

And this, rather than understanding the story as it stands, is clearly your primary concern. And that is an approach suitable only for apologetics.

If your confusion is genuine, reread my earlier posts.

No, the angel informs them that the tomb is empty so their reaction and his response can only be to what was just described.

Again, this represents your faith, a priori assumptions about the text, and the primary guiding concept in your interpretation.

Repeating this false claim does not make it true. I'm ignoring nothing. I'm noting, however, that an explicit statement is not necessary and requiring it is simply irrational.