Family Man

Tell me, John, where does this say that you're allowed to make up additional facts.

That statement appears to stand unchallenged.

So if a huge tomb won't work, let's see what a small tomb will do, eh? Why would they all need to? They had forty years and divine inspiration to get the story straight. And why haven't you addressed my point that they were supposed to have actually converse with these people? Apparently, that is such a horrible point against you that you don't have an answer. There is no good reason for the discrepancy.

Finally, I'm still wondering why anyone should take the story seriously when, but your own admission, the women made such unreliable witnesses.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

diana

JohnV,

Good evening.

While it's understandable that eyewitnesses who are reporting the size of a crowd might differ in the numbers they give, it is considered a pertinent omission for the eyewitnesses of a crime to report finding one person at the scene of the crime when there were in fact two.

If there was only one of the five (?) accounts that reported a different sequence of events, different people visiting the tomb, different numbers of young men waiting there, it would be fairly easy to dismiss it as apocryphal. But when all of the accounts differ in these respects, we're left with the problem of doubting all off the "eyewitnesses."

As far as I can tell, the messages of all the accounts are the same--although the details differ. My impression would be much better if they didn't all contradict one another; I'd be more likely to find them believable.

I didn't intend it as a dodge. I took the question as rhetorical. So instead of stating something I thought was fairly obvious anyway, I was trying to ask what I thought was a thought-provoking question.

I think the most likely explanation is that we're dealing with two separate people recording an oral tradition OR working off of a different/slightly "improved" copies of the original story.

So in Mark 20:1, when Mary is reported going to the tomb and finding the stone removed, she was with the ladies in question then? Or was she with them after the two apostles leave in verse 11?

This was the angel sitting on the right at the entrance of the tomb (the one that wasn't sitting where the body had lain), or one of the pair who'd appeared then gone to sit where the body had lain? I take it this was on her second visit to the tomb.

Was this before or after she left the tomb in hysteria? Did the angel or Jesus tell her to go tell the disciples he had risen?

I only ask because there seem to have been three angels, the way I figure it. One was sitting on the right inside the doorway (in the entranceway?); we know this is a different angel because he pointed the ladies to another place where the body had laid. Then later, we have two who appear standing, and another account that has two sitting where the body had lain.

You reconcile this one problem with "They appeared, then sat down." Ok. That leaves us with the angel in the doorway that says to Mary, ""Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

He points her to the place where they laid him. Two more angels appear standing next to her, then they sit where the body had laid and "the men said to them [her], "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" [He is not here, but has risen.] Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."

John 20:11 says she was outside of the tomb looking in, and weeping. They said unto her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him," then Jesus walks up in the form of a gardener and enlightens her.

At the very least, she takes a lot of convincing. When did the hysteria strike?

Maybe it's my translation, but I have, "Look, there is the place they laid him" in Mark and "Come, see the place where he lay" from the angel--who, incidentally, is discovered sitting on the stone outside the tomb in Matthew's account*--and Luke and John both reporting two young men inside the tomb standing/sitting. Those inside sitting on the slab, at least, would not say, "Look, there is the place they laid him."

*I know I restricted my question to Mark, Luke and John, but I was looking for something else, and noticed this and decided to throw it in. I do not claim to be infallible.

Mark says they [she] didn't: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Amusing. Thanks. I wasn't so concerned about Jesus' position in all this, though, so that was a bonus.

I'm more concerned about Mary's activities on the day the body turned up missing, since her alibis don't match. She spoke to several young men in white raiment in and around the tomb. She can't seem to decide where they were and how many there were. They all said basically the same things to her. We're beginning to question the dependability of this witness, Your Honor.

d

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

JohnV

Re: Family Man
Er, the "additional explanation" part.
It didn't deserve a challenge. But, if you insist - we're only allowed to make up plausible things.
Hmm, another off-topic point! Let's see what Barker actually says in the challenge (you know, the one that none of you have actually read):

"I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.)"

JohnV

Re: diana
I haven't pointed this out before, but - they weren't reporting a crime to law enforcement officials. They were reporting a miracle to fellow believers. Your analogy breaks down at this point.
Feel free to doubt. The challenge was to write one plausible narrative which incorporates all of the accounts, and I did. Whether that's good enough to dispel all your doubt is really another matter.

Kinda makes me wonder why we're going through all this, though. Seems you'll doubt the witnesses no matter how good my harmonization is.

And, if they all agreed, most here would scream "collusion."
I'd say that my harmonization shows them to be much more complementary than contradictory. And again, if the details all agreed, you could simply conclude that the accounts were invented by the authors - after all, witnesses never report all the details the same.
And what would you expect in such a case? Probably that the essential features - the main points being communicated - would agree, but there would be differences in some details not essential to the main points. Which is exactly what we find.
She was with the other women.
How do you know that the body wasn't laying on the right?
Yes. One sat at the head, and one at the foot. From some vantage point, one would be on the left, and one on the right.
Go back in the thread, I believe I made an amendment which covered this.
Let's see...he points beside himself and says, "Look, there is the place they laid him."
Again, see my amendment on Mary.
My translation has:

"See the place where they laid him." This works whether the angel is standing, sitting - whatever.

In Matthew, we have:
"Come, see the place where he lay."

Aha! "Come" is a contradiction! Consider the scene. One must stoop to look into this tomb, and there's a group of women there. Those in the rear would, indeed, have to 'come' to see.
You're now wasting my time - trying to bury me to make it go away, perhaps? I addressed this in my summary. Maybe you should re-read the entire thread, you seem to have missed a lot, and I'm tired of repeating myself.
So why did you ask? Just trying to bury me?

diana

Good morning, JohnV!

Granted. All analogies break down at some point. I was using it as an example of human nature, in what had to have been an intense and important event.

Yes, they were reporting this to fellow believers. That would mean that these accounts weren't meant to report what happened to unbelievers, let alone convince them.

So far, there are parts you have not reconciled. Personally, I'd have begun a serious attempt at reconciliation of the passages with a full quote of all that needed harmonization, then pull each piece into the overall narrative, therefore leaving no doubt that you've incorporated them all.

Even without doing this, your narrative was amazingly brief. There are several things you've failed to explain.

You have insisted that Mark's report of one angel wasn't entirely accurate, because two were actually there. You doubt Mark's witness in that he wasn't telling the whole truth. We simple doubt a bit more than you.

Your belief is therefore non-falsifiable. If all the details agree, we have complete harmony. If they don't, eye-witnesses are expected to report different things. So whether they agree or disagree, you still adhere to your "inherent" stance. Nifty.

Yes. I was describing the natural evolution of myth. In asking these questions, I've been working under the assumption that there would be something within an an inerrant inspired scripture that would distinguish it from fable.

Perhaps we should have all agreed on the translation we would use before we began. It would appear that some are more inspired than others.

OK. I did. You didn't. Please do so now.

I'm just trying to get you to incorporate all of the details of Mary's activities that morning in one post, in chronological order.

I have not yet asked you to reread five pages of the thread to find something I claim to have already covered because you missed it due to sloppy reading when I could easily write two sentences in the current post to answer your question, so I daresay that if one of us is deliberately wasting someone's time, it's you wasting mine.

I wasn't aware I'd asked you to explain anything about Jesus (other than whether it was him or the angel that told Mary to go tell the apostles her story, etc). I think you're already buried enough without me adding superfluous questions.

d

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

NOGO

You have removed a lot of information to get to that.

John 20
1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

Still dark
Tomb open.
Mary leaves believing that the body had been taken away.
She spoke to nobody on her first visit.

Matthew 28
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

At dawn, tomb still sealed
Angel opens tomb
Angel tells Mary that Jesus has resurrected.
Mary leaves with great joy knowing that Jesus was alive..


John's Mary leaves the tomb in a totally different frame of mind than Matthew's Mary because they saw and heard very different things.

Frankly, I don't mind if you add ANYTHING, just don't remove a single detail.

Family Man

Er, that allows you to present addition explanations -- for example, the women might not have seen all of the angels presents due to the smallness of the tomb -- not additional facts.

Oh, so you're not an inerrantist after all. My mistake.

But it is hardly an off the topic point. What you have been doing is not reconciling the contradictions. What you've been doing is to explain how the contradictions came about. Contradictions don't go away because we can point to the women and say: "These ladies were not infallible, so their misperceptions caused the gospel writers to write contradictory accounts." I'm in perfect agreement with that. But the fact remains that Mark reported one person is the tomb while the other gospel writers mentioned more. And you have no way to reconcile that.

Dark Jedi

This topic is becoming acerbic.

Warning: Further incidences of name calling or ad-hoc attacks will result in closure of the thread.

In really do not wish this to happen, this is a very productive thread, otherwise. Let's keep it from being personal.

Proposal: Take it to formal debate, if the onlookers and casual participants are causing dissonance. The one-on-five battle can be trying. (Welcome to our world, by the way... )

Many comments are standard around these parts.

Any reference to popcorn means this is likely to be a long and fascinating topic, with many passionate participants. It has proven to be so.

diana

Dark Jedi,

I propose that if we do transfer this topic to Debates, that the first thing we do is make the rules of it perfectly clear (i.e., which parts of the Easter story are to be reconciled), what tactics are allowed in that reconciliation, and which version of the story we'll be using.

That'll leave us, pretty much, arguing about how, if I notice an intruder in the back yard, I should announce, in a state of calm hysteria, to the other occupants of the house, "There is ONLY one man in the back yard!"

The police, of course, will later be able to record my story because I went away and told no one.

d

(P.S., JohnV, I second Dark Jedi's, "Welcome to our world!" Interesting sensation, isn't it?)

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

CX

JohnV, Please check your private messages. The email address you registered with is not currently functioning for some reason.