NOGO

This thread expanded much faster than I thought possible. I must admit that I did not read it all however the above answer to my post really requires an explanation.

When one says that you cannot omit anything you cannot omit anything.

Matthew says that the Angel rolled away the stone after the women arrived so how can you claim that this event did not happen this way?

Kosh

David, if you read John's complaint of how people were rude to him, it appears he has quite a different definition of rude than the rest of us! I suggest you deal with him gently, he seems to be quite sensitive about his religion...

JohnV

Aww, Kosh is a sore loser as well as an asshole.

The danger with pointing out that the thread is still here for all to read - is that the thread really is still here for all to read. Better be sure you have a winning case before you point that out.

JohnV

Barker:

"The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses."

David Bowden:
"Regardless, my point still stands - if we give you the license to insert events in this manner, it sets a bad precedent by which any chronologically unguarded passage in a text can be reinterpreted from its clear order to include any details from another account that don't specifically make such conflation rhetorically impossible."

Enough said.

JohnV

Barker:
"The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses."

Family Man:
"Think about it John -- being allowed to add material turns the challenge into a joke. Anything could be reconciled if we're allowed to make up stuff. Sure, you can do it if you want, but don't expect anyone to take your additions seriously."

Enough said.
Good point - for me. How did all those women crowd into the entrance to see just how many young men were already inside?

diana

Kosh,

I think we're all pretty sensitive about our position on relgious matters (yes even us atheists--especially us atheists). I'm trying to learn to deal gently with everybody. (You've known me a while. It's an uphill struggle. )

I notice this because I've spent some time on religious boards where the regulars would insult me and I'd strike back, then all the other regulars would jump me for being unnecessarily rude. It took me a while, but I started to catch on that they honestly didn't see the little barbs my opponent was loading his posts with. All they saw was my responses, and thought I was just attacking someone unprovoked.

I see the same thing happening here, in reverse.

A couple of insulting comments, not necessarily aimed at JohnV, but setting the tone, undoubtedly: I hadn't yet seen JohnV trying to avoid the challenge by complaining about superficial things. It looked to me as though he was making sure of the requirements before he began.

This is also insulting to theists. Considering that we have a guest theist answering a challenge, this doesn't sound very welcoming.

Then there's some polite give and take for a while, in which JohnV is defending his position--and pauses to make a flippant comment about off-topic posts, which wasn't particularly nettlesome--then someone (who shall remain unnamed) says,

I know it annoys the living shit out of me when some apologist accuses me of "playing games." I suspect it goes both ways. It's a superior and dismissive thing to say.

Then it just got nasty.

Besides...regardless of who starts it, we're all equally guilty if we retaliate in kind, and anyone walking into the middle sees us all behaving childishly.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act. (I ain't no mod, for the love of Pete.) I just thought I'd try to explain how I see it.

(Sorry for the off-topic post, mods. Back to the fray....)

d

David Bowden

David Bowden said:
"Have you decided not to do Barker's version of the challenge and chosen mine instead?"

JohnV said:
"I'm covering his first question, or, if you prefer, your revision."

My revision said:
"Using only material from the NT's Easter day accounts, give us an outline of that day's events, without omitting or changing a single detail from those accounts. Using Barker's language: Tell us "what happened; who said what, when; and where these things happened.""

Enough said.

JohnV

Re: Diana
True. We're not told what the women were wearing, or exactly what spices they had, or how much - these are also willful omissions of pertinent facts. So what?
Yes, on a point that makes no difference to the main points of the accounts.

Tell me - considering only Mark's account - if it had two angels, how would that change the message of the account? How would your impression of the account be any different?
Nice dodge. I think this isn't the case because of the many similarities. Now, care to answer my question (in a form other than a question)?
"when, exactly Mary Magdalene went to the tomb"
On the first day of the week, shortly before sunrise

"with whom"
The group included Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and other women.

"and what she saw there"
the stone rolled away, the tomb empty, and the guards fallen as if dead

"Who spoke to her?"
Mary was weeping. An angel said, "Woman, why are you weeping?"

Jesus, in the appearance of a gardener, spoke to Mary Magdalene

"Was he alone or with someone?"
angel with someone - Two angels

Jesus - not specified

"Was he sitting or standing and where?"
angel - sitting, where Jesus' body had been - appeared and then sat where Jesus' body had been

Jesus - not specified

"What did he say?"
angel - "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." The angel asked, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" He then continued, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise. He is not here, but has risen. See the place where they laid him. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him."

Jesus - Jesus, in the appearance of a gardener, spoke to Mary Magdalene, asking "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Mary replied, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus revealed himself to her, and then to the other women. He told them to go tell the disciples what they had seen, and to tell them that he was ascending to the Father, but he would see them in Galilee.

"What did she do with the information?"
The women went and found some of the disciples (we aren't told which) and told them what they had seen

Note that the bolded parts are from my opening account. It answers all of your questions except whether Jesus was alone, where exactly he was, and whether he was sitting or standing? (Mary, you saw a dead man alive? That's amazing! But was he sitting or standing?)

Edited out nastiness, since diana doesn't deserve it.

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

JohnV

You're correct. I didn't read your revision very closely, and had in mind that it only dealt with the time frame. Statement retracted, and a clarification - my account was according to Dan Barker's conditions, which expicitly permit additional information in the narrative. He suggested that such additional information be put in parens, and I didn't. However, with a Bible it's easy to tell which is which.

See folks, you don't have to hold on to everything for dear life. Better to retract than to continue your error!

Apikorus

What a coincidence! Jesus is the name of my gardener, too!