Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 07-10-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK. Let's try this.
Witness A: "It was raining."
Witness B: " It was not raining."
Do you think it would be reasonable for me to believe, without knowing or understanding anything about Witness A or Witness B, that they were contradicting each other?

In referring to them as witnesses, it is implied that they are testifying to the same event. By definition, one event occurs at one time and in one place. Beyond that, I assume nothing.

I ask again: Am I being unreasonable if I think they contradict each other?

if they are standing right next to you and speaking english, then no, you are not being unreasonable. if they are authors of a 2000 year old story, in a different culture, on the other side of th world, in a different language, recording the words from yet another language then I would say you are probably guilty of a rash judgment.

sschlichter · 07-10-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It is impossible to interpret it as never telling anyone ever because Mark would not have been able to write it down.

Unless he was writing fiction. In that case, no problem.

usually, the author is aware that they are writing fiction. This author does not seem to be.

thentian · 07-10-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

It would of course be wanton to maintain that they never told anyone ever. However, can you in all honesty reconcile it with (Matthew 28:8) "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. "

The awkward-ness felt on my part is how Mark decided to end the story. His ending is supposed to dramatically leave it at that point with 'the rest is history' type ending. (this being the actual ending of Mark's gospel). Perhaps he has still not adapted to the reforms that came with christianity at the point of his writng and thought the womens testimony un-worthy of mention. (pure speculation).

It is later (according to most) that Matthew, Luke, John included more post-resurrection details. Matthew's detail say they left the sepulchre quickly, and ran to tell the disciples. It does not say they quickly ran to tell the disciples (ignoring any pause - but not contradicting it). Technically, the 'quickly' goes with leaving the sepulchre, not the running and telling. Matthew includes the fact that they were afraid but makes no mention of the results of the fear (a pause before running and telling). 'and ran to tell the disciples' is a separate thought.

Luke, perhaps having Mark's account in mind, mentions that the women remembered what the angel said and then ran to tell them. It is only the harmonization that makes Lukes statement logical because his narrative says nothing of forgetting, so why does he mention remembering? I think he does so to accomodate Mark's detail and ending.

I would agree that, in English anyway, Matt 28:8 and Mark 16:8 is awkward.

~Steve

I don't think the problem is any smaller with the other gospel writers:

(Luke 24:9) "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others."

No running, but they certainly are telling somebody, not nobody, and "when they came back from the tomb" seems quite immediately to me.

(John 20:2) "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Certainly the problem is no smaller here!

If we are to read Mark literally, then he is clearly saying something that is not compatible with the other writers. Mary did NOT run straight to Peter, according to Mark. She fled and told nobody, because she was afraid!

And the "Easter Challenge" is a challenge to bible inerrantists who believe it is literally true everywhere. If we read these verses like a liberal there is no problem, as they are all telling "broadly the same story". The other writers just didn't feel it worth mentioning that Mary hesitated for some time before telling Peter and the others. But read Mark literally, and "... told nobody." is simply contradicting Matthew, Luke, and John. With Mark, there has to be at least a significant pause before she tells.

Keith&Co. · 07-10-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Unless he was writing fiction. In that case, no problem.

usually, the author is aware that they are writing fiction. This author does not seem to be.

How in the name of Cthulhu's slimy recliner can you claim to know what the author is aware of?

Whatever the author knows about the fact/fiction nature of his/her work, they don't always convey that fact to the audience.

Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' is written as a translation of an ancient document, with notes added to expand upon certain translation problems and even references to how other scholars through history have reacted to some scenes in the text. It's clearly a re-telling of the Beowulf myth, but nothing in the text shows that the author is aware of this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

badger3k · 07-10-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Well, 2000 years from now, people will probably misunderstand and get it wrong. So?

edit - to expand, people will probably confuse the issue and believe that there was one event. They will try to make it all fit together, and will get it wrong. Depending on how the data is covered, they may never know the truth, and may instead cobble together some incorrect assumptions. The problem remains, though, that the 9/11 attacks is still a multiplicity of events, not one single one. For all we know, the future people may think that the 9/11 "truthers" were correct. Same with the people who believe in biblical literalism.

pleae provide the same room for the gospels. it is multiple events (even though you calim it to be one), multiple visits, from multiple people, with muliple perspectives. In this thread, it is being assumed that when it says Mary M, that it has to mean Mary M alone. when it says an angel said, it is being assumed it is the same angel that moved a stone and that it is alone. Any mention of another visit or another angel is seen as contradictory when it is not. this is adding words and meaning to the text. When you ask someone in NY (for example) how many planes were in 9/11, they will probably say 2. they are obviously talking about the twin towers and you understand their context. If you ask someone that worked in the pentagon, they may say 4 because of the difference in their context. sorry, but that is how meaning and language works.

Now that we agree on the flexibility of language and it's context. Can you point out the necessary contradictions that are alleged in this thread? I do not care when you thought they were written and by whom, just interested in verses that contradict one another in these 6 passages.

~Steve

So, how many times did Jesus rise from the dead?

How many answers to the Sept 11 attacks were guided by reveation from your God?

Come on, get real.

It seems to me that you are saying that the anonymous evangelists did write down what they wanted to tell the message, but at the same time want to say that all these contradictory accounts are all accurate?

If someone said that there were two planes involved in the Sept 11 attacks, they will be wrong. There were four. Simple as that. If they say that there were four planes involved in the WTC attack, they would be wrong.

See how it works?

What you want to say is that in both cases, they would be correct. That is wrong. They are not correct.

All this twisting in the wind to satisfy a fantasy life. It's absurd.

badger3k · 07-10-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Thanks for the kudos but I have to admit that the relentless failure to grasp even the simplest point has become tiresome. What can you do with someone who needs support for the observation that the obvious cause of Mary's joy is the message she has just heard?

Is there any sense in attempting a rational discussion with someone whose counter-argument consists of essentially nothing but sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"?

Actually at this point, even any benefit that could be gained by teaching observers has probably been worn out. I've been skimming over his posts as they all seem to say the same thing, over and over. There are a few on this thread like that, and my tolerance has worn a bit thin right now, so I may drop out (well, given that I will be attending a seminar all next week and will probably not be able to spend time reading these boards is also a factor).

You know, the responses I've seen here remind me of my new puppy. When I tell him "no", he looks at me, waits a minute, then goes back to doing what he was doing (usually chewing something up). It just goes right over their head. I've run into similar attitudes from some of my students, and am still trying to figure out a way to deal with that. So, in a way, these threads are learning experiences...and as my Dad used to say, "It builds character!"

Amaleq13 · 07-10-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

...even if mary was talking about the dead body it is still plausible.

Wrong. Joy upon hearing he is alive is simply incompatible with concern about the location of his dead body.

Quote:

funny how the realm of informal logic states that arguments from authority are fallacious.

Your own source says otherwise. You still don't understand the difference, do you?

Quote:

She didn't believe the angels story...

Matthew's joyful response says otherwise.

Quote:

The joy came from hope of not seeing Jesus's body.

John 20:2 and 13 say otherwise.

Quote:

Another strawman.

I don't think you have used this term correctly once.

Quote:

There is plenty of hope there. Just because she is crying does not mean she doesn't have hope.

:rolling:

Her only "hope" is that someone will locate Jesus' dead body.

Quote:

leaving you once again back at square 1

Yep, still waiting for you to get a clue. You're just repeating yourself now and I'm not going to bother repeating what I've already said and you have utterly failed to counter. Your narrative is a failure but you appear unable to understand the nature of the failure or what is needed to correct it.

You clearly lack sufficient skills in language comprehension and logic to engage in a rational discussion. Good luck to anyone who, after reading this thread, comes to any other conclusion. :wave:

sschlichter · 07-10-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I don't think the problem is any smaller with the other gospel writers:

(Luke 24:9) "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others."

No running, but they certainly are telling somebody, not nobody, and "when they came back from the tomb" seems quite immediately to me.

(John 20:2) "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Certainly the problem is no smaller here!

not so, Luke alludes to a pause in stating that they remembered. In fact, Luke 24:7 and 8, have an unexplainable break without the pause referred to in Mark.

(Luke 24:7) that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."
(Luke 24:8) Then the women remembered his words,

the women remembered his words after overcoming their fear. Why else would it say this. the harmonization sheds light on Luke's statement.

thentian · 07-10-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I don't think the problem is any smaller with the other gospel writers:

(Luke 24:9) "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others."

No running, but they certainly are telling somebody, not nobody, and "when they came back from the tomb" seems quite immediately to me.

(John 20:2) "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Certainly the problem is no smaller here!

not so, Luke alludes to a pause in stating that they remembered. In fact, Luke 24:7 and 8, have an unexplainable break without the pause referred to in Mark.

(Luke 24:7) that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."
(Luke 24:8) Then the women remembered his words,

the women remembered his words after overcoming their fear. Why else would it say this. the harmonization sheds light on Luke's statement.

I'm not sure what you mean. They remembered what Jesus had said earlier about having to die and rise on the third day. How is it a break in Luke's account?

sschlichter · 07-10-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

not so, Luke alludes to a pause in stating that they remembered. In fact, Luke 24:7 and 8, have an unexplainable break without the pause referred to in Mark.

(Luke 24:7) that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."
(Luke 24:8) Then the women remembered his words,

the women remembered his words after overcoming their fear. Why else would it say this. the harmonization sheds light on Luke's statement.

I'm not sure what you mean. They remembered what Jesus had said earlier about having to die and rise on the third day. How is it a break in Luke's account?

I was saying that the women were remembering the angels' words, not Jesus'. However, I would concede that it is more likely that you right and it is talking about Jesus' words, in which case I withdraw my solicitation of Luke to alleviate the awkwardness between Matt and Mark. (possible but not as likely).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.