Sheshbazzar

If elaborate and 'contrived' "assumptions" can be made that are not based on the text, just where is there any reasonable end to the making of such assumptions?
IOW, the tomb is found empty and it is the first Easter Sunday morning, would an "assumption" that the Easter Bunny borrowed Santa's sleigh and the reindeer and busted JC out of the tomb and flew him away with him to India be warranted, simply because it is not specifically excluded?
Amaleq's "assumptions" are not of any such manner as give support to the occurance of supernatural events, and to ever evolving additional unreported and "unrecorded" scenarios.
The resurrection narrative as it presented in the various sources is already sufficiently implausible, and so far outside of any normal human experience, that any further expansion through the apologetic of adding in of "explanatory" details that are not present in any known version, does nothing to add any credibility to the story.
In fact, such attempted additions even further reduce the tales plausibility, and all the further call into question how these stories originated, when it is evident that various "believers" such as yourself feel warranted to expand upon the text at will.
Your own willingness and eagerness to so do does not reflect well upon those "believers" who went before you, also by association calling into question their methods and practices, thus further undermining the entire corpus as being a questionable account and a product of wholly human fabrication, and subject modification and expansion at will.

The theme of this thread is not amaleq's alleged mistakes or any deficiencies that you might claim to exist in his reasoning.
You can make any assumptions about the texts that you want, no matter how fantastic or ridiculous those "assumptions" might appear to others (ala. David Koresh)
However, you are sadly mistaken if you think that your "elaborations" must be found as acceptable to others, either the atheist's on here, or to the "believing" world at large.
I have several ordaind Christian ministers within my immediate family, men with whose doctrines and beliefs I am very well acquainted, I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they would reject your approach to this subject, as well as your pressing of your contrived and textually unsupported assumptions here.
You are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong forum, and in so doing are engaging in what is a henious discredit to the Christian religion and to all other sincere believers.
How many souls are you intending to win over by your present tact?
Feel like a real champion of the Bible on here?
News flash Doc. Get a clue, you aren't impressing anyone but yourself. Grandstanding is utterly vain, and is only to your own spiritual detriment.

Lugubert

On the lighter side, one detail that I've been thinking of recently is the Matthew version. When the at least two Marys arive, the stone is still there. The appearing angel removes it, and there's according to said angel nobody inside.

It would have been interesting to know the mechanism for removing the body through the cave walls or the sealing boulder.

Or, the not quite dead Mr. Josephson just hid inside (I see no mentioning of the visitors following the invitation from the angel to have a closer look), and left when the girls had departed, and ran to intercept them on their way to the disicples.

dr lazer blast

its called plausibility.
plausibility once again.


unfournuatly this is not about 'how these stories originated' or 'evidence of the supernatrual' this is about a the easter challenge.
You're missing the entire point of why the narrative was written in the first place, I am supposed to write a narrative and create a PLAUSIBLE coherent story without excluding any details.

Amaleqs arguments from authority are exactly that 'arguments from authority'. Amaleq basically said "Jhon 20:2" is taken this way because one pastor says so, and when I modified my narrative he claims 'its not supported in the text' and round and round his fallicious logic goes.


This is where you're wrong, as I am sure if I explained to them THE REASON I think the way I do they would certainly say "that quite possible"
I accepted the challenge and all was going fine until one moderator conceded (saying 'there are no contradictions therefore the bible has no contradictions) and amaleq stepped in with his fallicious, contradicting logic and totally derailed the thread, however considering he has yet to provide ANY evidence for his assertions aside from arguments from authority it looks like what I say still stands, and you're VERY WRONG about impressing anyone but myself I assure you that (I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter who I impress as I am not even doing this for myself, but I just felt the need to correct you on that little assertion.\)

Did you have a point by the way?

sschlichter

It does not say the stone is still there when they arrive.

at the end of 28:1 it says they...
went to look at the tomb.

suddenly (no mention of after or before). could have occurred while they went to the tomb. this is a separate scene.

Mat 28:2 Suddenly there was a severe earthquake,
for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven came and rolled away the stone and sat on it.
Mat 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

then after the rolling away scene (and presumably Jesus exits)

then the next scene...

Mat 28:5 But (or now) the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid;

they had to accept the invitation to take a peek or they would not have ...

Mat 28:8 So they left the tomb quickly,

Amaleq13

Yes, precisely the sort in which you should engage. It won't help your current position but any future efforts can only benefit.

Yet another mischaracterization? I said from the first that this was the plain reading of the passage and subsequently offered the independent, expert opinion of Paster Guzik to show I wasn't just fabricating a unique reading of the passage to serve my own purposes. Everyone reading this thread recognizes that you are unable to do the same whether you grasp that point or not.

Yes that is what happens when you import a notion into the story which conflicts with a detail already in the story. That is the opposite of what you are supposed to be doing.

So the sarcasm slipped right by you, eh?

ChristMyth

This is part of the problem with the texts as they stand. You are correct that the Matthew does not say that the stone was there when the women arrive, but then again it does not say that the stone wasn't there and the women come to look at the tomb. It can be interpreted either way.

IMO, if you follow the narrative as it reads, the women are there to see the stone rolled away since it is with them that the scene opens.

The scene begins with the women going to the tomb, there is an earthquake, and then the angel begins to speak to the women. I can understand if you were to look at the above as something akin to a movie script where there's a cut away to the tomb and then back to the women who arrive just after the event, but if you just read the text straight through, it suggest that the women are already there.

This is just my opinion, however, so take it for what its worth

Christmyth

aChristian

You said many things that I believe are incorrect in your post. I just picked this section as an example. Do you have a daily diary of Herod and what he did so that you know the children were not killed? Do you have Quirinius' diary and know exactly what he was doing during his entire lifetime? I think that what you perceive as errors are just areas that you are ignorant of. I think the Bible is accurate and many conservative scholars have given good answers to your objections. I also doubt that intellectual doubts are the reason you left your pulpit. In my opinion, the historical and scientific evidence for the Bible and Christianity is massive and irrefutable as any honest inquiry will reveal.

angelo

I was taught at a very young age to look at history with a sceptical eye if one or more mistakes were obvious in the telling as the gospels obviously are.
If one mistake is discovered, how many others are there likely to be undiscovered? Also, why do the earliest christian writings fail to mention any tomb or angels or earthquake. Paul's who is regarded as the earliest writings fails to mention any of it. Why?

sschlichter

You see Paul's not mentioning all of the same details of the other authors in his one paragraph on this as a mistake? Well, you did not have to read it, you could have just counted the words.

Are you aware of what value the testimony of women had in the first century. Prior to Paul's writings, there would not have been any reason to include a woman in the story.

gregor

aXian: Thanks for the content-free, drive-by apologetics. If you'd like to start a new thread on:

1. Independent attestation of Herod's order of the murder of thousands (as recounted by historians of the time);

or

2. Quirinius' multiple office holdings;

Feel free.

Or if you can meet Barker's challenge, give it a try. DLB's attempt has fallen flat.