Scene by the tomb.

How do literalists harmonize the disparate accounts at the tomb?

For example, in St Matthew's account (28:1-10):

1) Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary' go to the tomb;
2) An earthquake happens and an angel pushes the stone away;
3) The angel sits upon the stone with a glowing appearance;
4) The guards are scared stiff;
5) The angel explains precisely what happened;
6) The women run to tell the disciples;
7) Before they do, they encounter the Risen Christ, who tells them to
meet Him at Galilee.

In the St John account (20:1-18):
1) Mary Magdalene comes alone;
2) She observes the stone rolled away;
3) She runs back and specifically explains that she doesn't know
where Jesus is;
4) St Peter and the beloved disciple run back and inspect the tomb;
5) They leave, unsure but believing;
6) Mary hangs out, encounters two angels and then immediately
(without travelling) the Risen Christ.
7) She then goes and tells the Disciples about her encounter.

I'd be interested to hear how these two accounts can be reasonably
reconciled.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
How do literalists harmonize the disparate accounts at the tomb?

For example, in St Matthew's account (28:1-10):

1) Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary' go to the tomb;
2) An earthquake happens and an angel pushes the stone away;
3) The angel sits upon the stone with a glowing appearance;
4) The guards are scared stiff;
5) The angel explains prec ...[text shortened]... .

I'd be interested to hear how these two accounts can be reasonably
reconciled.

Nemesio

I struggle to believe you've not read atleast the most elementary Bible studies on this apparent disparacy.

It's just me, when I see something I don't understand, I read it again. If I still don't understand it, I read online Bible studies on the topic. If still lost, I'll pray to God for guidance, awaiting patienty His response.

Try that approach instead of RHP forums if you want an answer.

all the best

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
I struggle to believe you've not read atleast the most elementary Bible studies on this apparent disparacy.

It's just me, when I see something I don't understand, I read it again. If I still don't understand it, I read online Bible studies on the topic. If still lost, I'll pray to God for guidance, awaiting patienty His response.

Try that approach instead of RHP forums if you want an answer.

all the best

pc

Actually every Bible study, I've seen does a very poor job of harmonizing the stories. They either dismiss the issue ("The witnesses just had a different perspective." I say Toe-may-toe you say Tah-mah-toe kinda deal), draw on unsubstantiated extra-Biblical hypotheses, or leave out the passages that conflict all together.

Some of these can be incredibly convoluted like Jason Gastrich's attempt here.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72745

When I consider my experience as an xtian for nearly 20 years, I realize that no fellow believer that I encountered expressed to me any concern with the harmony of the resurrection accounts. I first discovered that the subject was even contested from my high school academic dean. I got a little too heavy witnessing to him, and being that we were in a private school, he challenged me to read over the four accounts in the gospels during the study period and then come back with a consistent story. Needless to say I couldn't do it. I only had a non-commentary Bible that day, and so I couldn't depend on the harmonization in my normal Bible. I didn't renounce xtianity then, but it did make me more careful about just assuming that the Bible was free of contradiction.

Originally posted by pcaspian
I struggle to believe you've not read atleast the most elementary Bible studies on this apparent disparacy.

It's just me, when I see something I don't understand, I read it again. If I still don't understand it, I read online Bible studies on the topic. If still lost, I'll pray to God for guidance, awaiting patienty His response.

Try that approach instead of RHP forums if you want an answer.

all the best

pc

This seems to be your approach to the Bible: read it over and over
until the mind accepts that the details of two mutually exclusive
stories is possible.

I've read these stories many times, pcaspian. A rational person would
deem them irreconcilable. However, I am opened to your interpretation,
if you care to give it.

Specifically, address the following descrepencies:
1) How many people were at the tomb?
2) Was the stone rolled away before or after she/they got there?
3) Did she/they meet Jesus with the angel(s?) or on the way to the Disciples?
4) Did the Disciples inspect the tomb before or after this encounter
(Compare St John with St Luke)?
5) Did she/they make two trips or one (the Synoptics say that they
were going to the tomb to anoint the body and then encounter the
angel(s), however, why would she/they bring spices on the second
trip if they knew the tomb was empty as per the Johannine account)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This seems to be your approach to the Bible: read it over and over
until the mind accepts that the details of two mutually exclusive
stories is possible.

I've read these stories many times, pcaspian. A rational person would
deem them irreconcilable. However, I am opened to your interpretation,
if you care to give it.

Nemesio

Hmm, be a waste of my time to debate scripture with you. See, had you truely an interest in finding the answer, you would have frequented a reputable site dedicated to scripture. You have chosen however to discuss this with the likes of RBHill and Darvius, who you know will not satisfy your request irrespective of their answers. Funny, you've already studied the opinions of the most reputed Biblical scholars, yet earnestly seek an answer at RHP's "Spirituality" forums 🙂

So lemme give you some advice. If God isn't good enough to explain it to ya, RHP certainly won't be. So you can sit on it and spin for the guise of 'searching for knowledge' is wearing thin 😉

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
Hmm, be a waste of my time to debate scripture with you. See, had you truely an interest in finding the answer, you would have frequented a reputable site dedicated to scripture. You have chosen however to discuss this with the likes of RBHill and Darvius, who you know will not satisfy your request irrespective of their answers. Funny, you've already studi ...[text shortened]... sit on it and spin for the guise of 'searching for knowledge' is wearing thin 😉

pc

Actually, the reason I post this stuff is because I find it incredible that
a thinking, reasoning human beings can suspend their brains to the
degree that two stories with irreconcilable elements can be
simultaneously true.

Indeed, my purpose is to get these so-called literalists (for they
'interpret' where need suits them) into discussion in an attempt to
liberate them from the smothering that their brand of faith entails
and to permit them to be Christians of Living Faiths, not embracing
rules and stories like Pharisees, but to embrace the Truth within those
stories.

I have no guise, pcaspian. My purpose is the pursuit of truth.
Embracing the literality of two stories with mutually exclusive elements
is not parcel to that purpose, and, as such, I point out these things
in an effort to liberate Darfius and RBHILL.

You don't want them liberated. You want them chained. You won't
discuss it because you know that the discussion will necessarily expose
contradictions that your rational brain knows exist and will weaken your
absurd claim of literality. You want everyone to be an automatonic
Christian; I want them to be free to experience the Truth.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio

You don't want them liberated. You want them chained. You won't
discuss it because you know that the discussion will necessarily expose
contradictions that your rational brain knows exist and will weaken your
absurd claim of literality. You want everyone to be an automatonic
Christian; I want them to be free to experience the Truth.

Nemesio

Fascinating, and there I was wanting nothing but to spread the Gospel. That however is not truth, rather a literal reading of the Gospel where belief is Christ is irrelevant to salvation. Freak on a brick.

If you want to spread this doctrine, feel free, but stop pretending to spread Christianity, for the two versions are far removed. I couldn't care less what you choose to believe, your guise of debating scriptures and searching for 'truth' is immature, especially when you're only out to prove your point, irrespective of other views presented. You're wasting people's time by meaningless debate, yet are offended when they tire of
taking time to talk to you. I, and just about every other Christian on this site have tired of doing research, only so you can reject those views of pre-meditated bias. For that reason alone, you're on your own. Lets make this my last post to you, for you can try bate RBHill and Darfius from now on...

I'll leave you with this verse. All the best in future.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:8)

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
I struggle to believe you've not read atleast the most elementary Bible studies on this apparent disparacy.

It's just me, when I see something I don't understand, I read it again. If I still don't understand it, I read online Bible studies on the topic. If still lost, I'll pray to God for guidance, awaiting patienty His response.

Try that approach instead of RHP forums if you want an answer.

all the best

pc

Nemesio doesn't want any answers, he wants to have a fight with those who are supposed to take the bait and guess who this bait is for ?

I hope they will be able to resist the temptation.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Nemesio doesn't want any answers, he wants to have a fight with those who are supposed to take the bait and guess who this bait is for ?

I hope they will be able to resist the temptation.

If they have any more brains than Schiavo, they will. Nemesio would chew them and their apologist idols up like Hannibal Lector at a nudist convention.

Nemesio has an excellent point and no one is willing and able to address it. Everyone reading this thread should take that into consideration when deciding about what they believe and how they choose to live their lives.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Nemesio doesn't want any answers, he wants to have a fight with those who are supposed to take the bait and guess who this bait is for ?

I hope they will be able to resist the temptation.

Ivanhoe, have you given thanks to Jesus today that you are not as one like Nemesio?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Ivanhoe, have you given thanks to Jesus today that you are not as one like Nemesio?

Isn't it difficult Kirk to adress the implications and consequenses of the "Pharisee and the Publican" Parable, without running the risk of being accused by someone else, a Pharisee or a publican (who knows), of being a Pharisee ?

Your question Kirk implies without any effort on your side trying to hide (should you recieve praise or rebuke for that ?) the accusation that I am a Pharisee.

Have you ever had the guts to preach about this parable and tell your people that they and we all are the Pharisee and we all need forgiveness from our Heavenly Father ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Isn't it difficult Kirk to adress the implications and consequenses of the "Pharisee and the Publican" Parable, without running the risk of being accused by someone else, a Pharisee or a publican (who knows), of being a Pharisee ?

Your question Kirk implies without any effort on your side trying to hide (should you recieve praise or rebuke for that ?) ...[text shortened]... that they and we all are the Pharisee and we all need forgiveness from our Heavenly Father ?

Apparently my humor was not sufficiently communicated. Are you Dutch always so serious? The tulips have not bloomed here yet. They always help my mood.

Originally posted by pcaspian
I, and just about every other Christian on this site have tired of doing research, only so you can reject those views of pre-meditated bias. For that reason alone, you're on your own. Lets make this my last post to you, for you can try bate RBHill and Darfius from now on...

I am amused that you acuse me of pre-mediated bias and that I make others do research.
You protest too much. Indeed, it is you with the pre-meditated bias: you insist on the literality
of four disparate stories; you read everything through this lens, this so-called 'truth' (which is
nothing but a sham).

I pose the question -- and yes, it was in part rhetorical -- to demonstrate that your understanding
of Christianity is a perversion. It is so-called 'truth' predicated on a lie, that everything
reported in the Gospels is literally and historically true. You are the one with pre-conceived
views about God, not I.

And here's the funny thing: You need it to be true to believe. You need for there
to be one and two angels at the tomb. You need for Mary to be alone and with one and
two other people. You need for the stone to be already moved before her/their arrival only
to have it in place and moved in their presence.

Lies! Your faith is predicated on literalism, which is a lie! What a tragic life you must lead, to
have to bend your will and mind to believe something which, by its own admission, cannot be true!
That's not faith, that's foolishness.

Then you have the audacity to tell me that your interally deceitful truth damns me? What a laugh!

No. You force brain into the 'off' position because you are scared. You force yourself into the
suspended reasoning mode because you fear true faith. You want the same thing the Pharisees
wanted: a bunch of rules and regulations. If you follow A, B, and C, while avoiding D, E, and F,
you're saved. Fear!

This is why the 13th century Roman Catholic Church was so successful: Fear! This is why
conservative Christian churches attract so many people: Fear! People just want something easy,
something simple, something with clear-cut guidelines so they can be assured of their
salvation. They make up terms like 'Once Saved, Always Saved,' even though this flies in the face
of the very Book they call Scripture! They say things like, 'Works don't matter,' even though their
own Bible says that they do! They demonize the 'other' -- the heathen Moslems, Mormons and
'godless' Buddhists -- in an effort to insulate themselves. 'God will save us and burn them,' you
say. But, I'm a loving God, too.

Arrogance! Pharisitic arrogance! You intentionally ignore Jesus's message because the message
is hard. It's a life of sacrifice. It's a life of service. It's a slave's life! You have to give without
expectation of recompense. You have to accept slaps on the face. You have to be flawlessly good
in the face of temptation. You have to avoid judging. You have to sacrifice. And, most
importantly, you have to love undyingly everyone -- friend and enemy -- you experience, just as
God loves us (so says your Bible).

You've learned nothing from Christianity, pcaspian, except a way to justify your bigotry, hatred and
arrogance. You've only learned how to be a modern-day Pharisee -- self-righteous and proud,
following all the 'rules' without attending to the message that underlie those rules. You are doing
things not because you ought to do them, but because you are told to do them. It used to be
food laws, circumcision and cup-washing; now it's about homosexuality, saying the Rosary, or
confessing with your mouth. You've learned nothing from Jesus, except how to be a different kind
of Pharisee. Jesus fought against literalism in His day, and yet you cling to it like a security
blanket. Literalism has blinded you to Truth, pcaspain, and I sincerely hope and pray that one day
the Holy Spirit might deign to open your eyes to real Truth, that you might come to understand all
the lives you have harmed (including your own) by your corrupt beliefs.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspian
[b]I, and just about every other Christian on this site have tired of doing research, only so you can reject those views of pre-meditated bias. For that reason alone, you're on your own. Lets make this my last post to you, for you can try bate RBHill and Darfius from now on...

I am amused that you acuse me of pre ...[text shortened]... derstand all
the lives you have harmed (including your own) by your corrupt beliefs.

Nemesio[/b]

Right on the money. Show me a true Christian and I'll show you my brother.