Atticus_Finch

I have only a simple question for you, is it a reasonable explanation? (I must admit that I would also want to know if you have ever heard that argument before, but that is just my pride asking....) Lets not change the playing field. The question is not whether you find it to be the MOST persuasive or compelling, but rather whether it is reasonable.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones

It wasn't sarcasm, and it wasn't my original post. Matthew 28:1 clearly shows the Marys were present when the angel "descended" and performed its rock rolling trick.

You ask: "[D]oes it SAY in Matthew that the angel was on the stone when it spoke to the women?"

I ask: "Does it SAY the angel got off the stone prior to addressing the Marys?" If not, the angel was on the stone whilst addressing the Marys (after the guards had passed out) yes?

If you're going to suggest that the verses are all mixed up chronologically, then we've got god knows how many more contradictions.

Edited to add HJ's Commentary™ in italics:

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

Matthew 28:1 does not say the women were present when the angel rolled back the stone. It just says they went to see the supulchre. You have failed to explain why Matt. 28:2-4 must be read chronologically as happening between v. 1 and 5. Matthew did not need to say the angel got down from the stone. It was not necessarily important to him where the conversation took place. How do I know the angel got down from the stone? Because Mark says the conversation took place in the tomb. He added that detail for some reason. They fit together nicely don't they.

Regards,

Finch

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

hezekiah addressed much of this while I was posting, but onward xtian soldiers:

"Required?" A contradiction exists or it does not. I have demonstrated, so far, that we have several.

Which one?

This is the entire chronology:

If the women did not witness this (as the natural storytelling chronology blatantly implies), then what is it they are fearing?

The chronology of the story is obvious, but nice try.

Again, nice try, but it is obvious in the chronology of the story, so if this is your approach, we will end this now as pointless, since you have nothing to stand on but an unreasonable, forced apologetics that does not naturally follow even the most basic tenets of story telling.

The author tells us that a group of women come to see the sepulchre. Then we are told that an earthquake signals the descension of an angel of the Lord who rolls the stone aside. The women are terrified and the angel tells them not to be, for it is there to reveal the resurrection to them.

Does it SAY the angel moves? No it does not.

Now we've just descended into childishness.

It states quite clearly that the angel sits on the stone. Since there is no other indication from the author, it is taken as part of the story that this is where he speaks from.

How?

A reasonable reading of the opening setting of Matthew's story would be chronological, just like any other story.

The author sets the scene by telling us that two women (not three, as in Mark) go to the tomb. An earthquake signals the descension of an angel, who then rolls the stone away, terrifying everyone, including the women.

It sits on the stone and says, "Don't be afraid, this is why you came here, go in and look."

That is a reasonable reading and it does in fact contradict Mark.

You have just clearly demonstrated that you are not interested in an honest assessment at all and I fear this will most likely be our first and last debate on this, unless you apply the most basic reasonableness regarding known storytelling technique; let alone historical documentation of actual events!

Then you're stating that Mark simply decided that there was no historical need to mention an earthquake and an angel of the Lord's appearance and its integral role in not just the resurrection, but also in the "official," divine proclamation of prophecy fulfilled?

That is by no means a reasonable conclusion to draw regarding either an historical document or a simple retelling of what actually happened on that day.

It is neither as has been easily, succinctly, and conclusively demonstrated.

And yet, the name clearly applies, since you did not address any of the other contradictions and applied the most unreasonable apologetics to this issue in order to, IMO, weasel out of addressing it.

When comparaing texts, we need to focus on what is stated, not speculate on what might or might not be stated, agreed?

Now, I presented a detailed analysis and explained how they were contradictory. Your response was to simply state what I already addressed regarding the "story of the gaps" argument, which is the equivalent of saying, "It just isn't contradictory because I say so."

Kindly go point-by-point and offer counter-argumentation that does not place us squarely in the realm of children.

In other words, what did Mark and Matthew SAY happened, not speculation on what they DIDN'T say.

Mark says:[*] tomb already open[*] man inside tomb waiting, tells three women about Jesus, the Nazarene.

Matthew says:[*] tomb opened by an angel[*] angel sits on rock outside tomb and tells two women about Jesus, the Lord.

They both can't be true and since Mark was most likely written first, we should default to Mark, yes?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

No, they do not, because Mark was written first and clearly states a man is in the tomb.

There is no mention of an angel, so either Mark is wrong or Matthew is.

hezekiah jones

Please tell me this is a joke.

Koyaanisqatsi

A reasonable joke, no less.

Valmorian

Reasonable to whom? I find the concept of a man dying and coming back to life three days later to be unreasonable. I find the concept of talking snakes to be unreasonable. I find the concept of Jesus walking on water as a miracle to be unreasonable.

If you're going to argue that one must make leaps of "reasonableness" to make the bible non-contradictory, why not apply it to the supernatural events too? Why not presume that the authors are mistaken, or in error about their witnessing?

Kosh

Finch,

would the Gospels be admitted in court as
evidence?

spin

OK, babies, whadabout Jesus' last words?

John 19:30 has "It is finished", he hangs his head and dies.

Luke 23:46 has "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and dies.

One could add the other two with their versions "eli eli lama sabachtani", then after a loud cry, he dies. But stretching the significance of the loud cry one could translate that from the English to he cried out words (which Luke records) then dies. Silly, but not worth the effort. I'll just stick to Luke v John.

Oh, but wait, John had a cheap babelfish in his ear and only gave an approximation, whereas Luke had the expensive version.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>