Patriot7

What detail did Mr. Gastrich omit?

kais

Diogenes the Cynic: "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 not only tries to say that it happened before they got there but also inserts another appearance by Mary M alone in between the earthquake/descending angel and the visit by Mary M and 'the other woman.'"

Patriot7

Kais,

DTC is not accusing Mr. Gastrich of omitting a detail. He's accusing him of lying in his harmonization of those details. A rather bold claim by DTC. Demonizing your opponent and ad hominem are usually fall back tactics, but DTC suprisingly leads with this one here. I guess Mr. Gastrich's response stretched some neurons.

How do the biblical accounts of the resurrection contradict each other in your opinion?

Diogenes the Cynic

What's "bold" about it? Do you deny that gastrich lied?
No. Pointing out a lie is neither ad hominem nor "demonization" of an opponent. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that an opponent has misrepresented the facts.
How don't they?

Diogenes the Cynic

By the way, the 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.

Spanky

I am kind of confused with the jcsm link and the supposed refutation of Barker's challenge???
The link only shows 4 verses, or instances as the complete chronological story of easter morning. Where are the other 30 or so odd happenings of that morning?
Did I miss something, a link or something? Where is the complete picture? That is, every word written from Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John that describes what happened that morning and put down in a non-conflicting way. This cannot be done. Nor has it been done. Nor will it be done.

Spanky

By the way, when I was a minister I remember vividly seeing the conflicts amongst the four gospels of easter morning. This was disturbing to my faith back then. I believe it was a good start in the right direction.

kais

I'll be happy to bold the relevant part of the quotation for you.

Diogenes the Cynic: "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]..."

Put another way:

Diogenes the Cynic: "[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."

I think you would do well to deal with those posters who are already a part of this thread before trying to engage yet another person. I was merely trying to help the discussion move forward by pointing out why DtC's comment in post #340 represented valid criticism of Gastrich's response.

Patriot7

Refutation? I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What is Barker's challenge if it is not what Barker wrote himself?

Did Mr. Gastrich not tell us what he thinks happened using a set of principles for his intepretation? What details of the (4) gospel accounts of this event contradict one another in your opinion?

Diogenes the Cynic

It's the "refutation" which seems to be incomplete, not the challenge itself.
I wouldn't say he used any principles and the attempt is incomplete. Where's the rest of it?
How many women went to the tomb? Was the rock still there when they got there or was it rolled away already? How many angels were there? Where did they come from? When did they appear? When did Jesus first appear and who did he appear to? Did he appear to the disciples in Jerusalem or in Galilee?

Those are some questions that should keep you busy for awhile. Good luck.