JohnV

Re: Kosh, more reading difficulties

No, he wasn't trying to give an "exact" account. Neither was he trying to give an exhaustive, or even a comprehensive, account. He was trying to give an "orderly" account. You quoted it yourself!

Again, if we stick with what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN, and don't read in words that aren't there, we have no problem.
It's explained in my narrative. Go back and read it again. If you must then admit that it's beyond your comprehension, I'll type it out again for you.
Yes, and very easily. You purposely cut off the sentence to try to make a point! The entire sentence is:

7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.

Peter had seen an empty tomb. The angel gave a reminder to go to Galilee. When people see an empty tomb, they do not automatically think, 'Gee, I should go to Galilee.'

JohnV

Re: Family Man

No, your argument is silly and excessively pedantic, and has been dealt with. At this point I'll trust that most Internet Infidels aren't so anal in their use of language.

Hehe.

JohnV

ROFL! No, the text as written identifies one man. You just inserted the "only" again - and yet you claim that MY position is dependent on "only." This is pathetic. Here's some advice - leave it to those more competent than you.

JohnV

Re: David Bowden
I missed that. Please point out the words that make this "completely straightforward."
That's certainly the impression you get when reading Matthew. However, it's an impression. There's nothing definite actually written - like "at the same time," or "immediately," or the like. So, this impression is open to interpretation.

Similarly, Barker's first paragraph gives the impression that he is only interested in Easter day itself. However, he didn't actually say "only," or "the twenty-four-hour period," so this impression is open to interpretation. A few paragraphs later, we see that the intital impression is incorrect. No one had a problem with this - it's normal speech and interpretation.
Again, if the account actually said "during the women's visit," you'd have a point. But it doesn't say that. That is an impression you got, an impression which is open to interpretation.
Let's see the quote. Does it say this, or is it again your impression?
Really? As I read Matthew, it refers to "women" in these verses, not "Mary Magdalene."
Let me go back and check my harmonization...looks like I forgot to put in Mary stepping away. Here's a revision. The additions are in bold:

"Mary was weeping. An angel said, "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?" Mary left the tomb. The angel 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." The women then went out from the tomb, joyful.

Meanwhile 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. The other women, having left the tomb, came up and saw Jesus also. 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."
Points like this prove that no one of the gospels (or even all four together, for that matter) gives an exhaustive account of the day. I agree. Your point?
Let's look at the preceding verse:

"7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." 8And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Since they had just been told to tell the disciples, it's reasonable to conclude that they did not tell anyone except the disciples. This is the best you have, though, as my argument is subjective (i.e., you're not adding or substituting words on this one).

That's all I've got time for right now. That was a long post, feel free to bring up points I passed over if you feel they're important.

Kosh

Really?

I guess it depends on the interpretaton you decide you like best!

Also, John, is it possible for you to participate in this without resorting to personal insults of competency and reading problems? You're not winning any converts here...

diana

JohnV,

You seem hung on this idea, as though we're being unfair to be so skeptical of interpretations of scripture but are willing to let Barker slide. But you yourself admitted that Barker's challenge was self-contradictory, or at best, unclear.

We let him slide because he doesn't claim divine inspiration. He also isn't purporting to record the most momentous event in human history.

"Only" is necessary inference. Say you're walking down the street and see two young men running out of a dark alley. You go to the alley and see the body of a freshly murdered man. You call the police and tell them your story. How many young men do you report having seen leaving the scene, and how do you report it? (For the purposes of this illustration, I won't even posit that the young men in question were dressed all in white, let alone "in shining white raiment like lightning" or such silliness, which would make mentioning one--and still being perceived as truthful--even more ludicrous.)

Let's say you're into telling the truth. Do you report "two young men" leaving the scene? Or do you report--without prompting from your interrogators--"only two young men"?

If you report to the police--again, without being prompted otherwise--that there were "only two young men leaving the scene," what do you suppose their immediate reactions will be?

If I were in that situation, the first thing that would spring to mind is, "Why did you say only?" Why am I so suspicious? Because you just made a verbal slip. You just told me through necessary inference that you know more than you're telling.

Now, in the tomb story, we have the possibility of a crime having been committed. Would the narrator report all the facts or only the convenient facts?

Both the young men, moreover, were sitting together (where the body had lain), dressed all in white. There's no doubt that the narrator saw both. Don't you think the spectacle--the miracle of the angels' appearance in the tomb--as described by Luke would be worth a mention, if that's indeed what happened?

C'mon. We have a missing body here. And people are claiming HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD. Just like the witness to the perps leaving the scene of a murder, I don't trust the narrator who reports, in such a momentous story, only those facts that are convenient to his narrative when he obviously (according to your harmonization) saw far more, but carefully selected what to report and what not to report.

If Mark had said "only one man" was in the tomb, we'd have known that he was aware of a different account of the story and was intentionally contradicting it OR the narrator clearly had seen two and for some reason wanted to cover up this fact.

If the "only" is included, it arouses questions concerning the authenticity of at least one of the accounts; if the "only" is not included, it arouses questions as to what the narrator is hiding. Either way, you lose--because of Luke's account that says there was more than one man there.

Also, reporting how many people spoke at a convention or how many bowls of cereal you've eaten isn't quite in the same category as reporting how many people were found at the scene when apparently the most important missing body in history has just disappeared, don't you think? Common sense dictates that there are times it's fine to fudge or omit facts, then there are times we need all the facts to the best of the witnesses' recollections.

d
if anything, more anal than Family Man

P.S. I'm surprised no one has mentioned it here, but I've encountered several Xns who acknowledge the disharmony of the accounts and actually use this as proof as to the authenticity of the eyewitness reports. The reasoning goes that eyewitnesses always see different things (true), and the stories would actually be less believable if they purported to come from different witnesses and they all happened to match (or harmonize easily). This explanation conveniently forgets the inspiration of the bible, though.

Butters

I agree Diania, The Bible is supposed to be an acurate historical account, unless it contradicts itself, then the writers "just wanted to show the basics of the story" Small details like how many angels were their, how many people were there, what time of day it was, and other details were "unimportant" to the story, and so no problem here!
Luke is supposed to be a great historian, but when he leaves out major events to a story, hey it's no problem! He was busy recording the word of God, so , if he left out a few details like who, where, when, or what, thats O.K., he told us WHY, and that should be good enough.

I like Barkers own reply to this.

Something very wrong indeed.

Butters

hehe
There is only one "intrepratation". In fact, no interpratation is needed. Within the very same document, a few lines down, the challenge is laid out. You do not have to check other documents, written by other people, at other times to "interpret" what Barker says. You just have to read the text. All of it. I know this is different than reading the Bible .where you have to pull a few words from this book, a few words from that book, translate some words from on source, and other words from another source, until you get what you want. hehe


hehe But the fact that Acts puts the ascension forty days later is not a problem?hehe

You still haven't point out this glaring error.hehe

hehe Execpt we are not dealing with one work, that includes the details within itself. We are dealing with six DIFFERENT accounts. hehe Different authors, different times. Now if John had said Two angels, and then later said The angel, we would know that there were two, and he was speaking about one of them at the time.hehe
But Matthew and Mark never MENTION more than one, so reading the text, we can ONLY conclude there was ONE. To say they neglected to mention the apperance of an angel, is to say that their whole account is suspect.hehe

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Butters ]</p>

Family Man

What is pathetic is your inability to understand the nuances of language.

Of course I added an only. I can do that because the context is different. Since it is already established that there was one man in the tomb in Mark's account the only in my sentence acts as emphasis.

However, to insert an only in Mark's account turns the account into a joke. That would suggest that they were not only expecting people to be there, but were surprised that there was only one. That, of course, is not the meaning of the text.

The women went to the tomb. There was a man. There was only one man. Notice I can't take out the second sentence of this paragraph without changing the meaning. Which is why your post above is completely off the mark.

And, yes, you're the one who insists that the text requires an only for us to conclude that there was only one man in the tomb. Unfortunately for you, only can't be used that way in the passage. It's impossible.

Again, I'd check the validity of your arguments before you post them. I think you're starting to look quite ridiculous with these obvious linguistic fallacies you keep posting.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

Except that you're the one insisting that [b]only[\b] must be inserted into the text, ignoring the fact that it changes the meaning. I'm the one who is pointing out that the plain reading of the text indicates only one man in the tomb. Your pedantism isn't going to change that.

And, no, you haven't dealt with it. All you have done is to post linguistic fantasies, despite the fact that what you require is impossible to insert into the text. Your arguments are worthless.

There was only one man in the tomb in Mark's account. Your arguments haven't changed that fact and the contradiction still stands.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>