Vinnie

The more simplistic theories are the better ones given the pit fall that we are dealing with a HYPOTHETICAL document.

Brown (intro the the NT p 122)

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Radorth, why not start with Goodacre's site? Goodacre is one of the two or three leading scholars of Q, a patient scholar, highly creative, intelligent and perceptive, whose works are eagerly awaited by other scholars. Nobody would describe him as "simplistic." Goodacre's site will answer your questions much better than I ever could.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

I do find it amusing to read debates between scholars with deep disagreements. They read something like this:

"You said XYZ"

"No I didn't. I said XY."

"Well you certainly implied Z."

"No I didn't"

"Yes you did."

"Did not."

"Did so."

Before long, they are splitting hairs over what words mean.

Of course it's all couched in fluent and technical English, but that is how it sounds to the average person. I find it disturbing that we are so much alike- that beliefs, not evidence or rational thinking determine the course of a discussion or the conclusions of a thesis. And I don't mind pointing it out, especially in those always claiming the rational high ground.

Radorth

NOGO

It should be obvious to you Radorth that opponents to Christianity do not need to agree nor present a single consistant thesis to discredit Chrisitanity.

On the other hand Christians need to do just that. We will leave aside the fact that over 2000 groups call themselves Christians and each has the TRUTH at the exclusion of everybody else. I would be happy if any of these groups could answer half of my questions.

You repeatedly cast yourself as the victim here, lashing out at one and all.

In another thread I asked that you reconcile the resurrection stories or at least Matthew's version against John's. My contention is that it can't be done which proves that at least one of the two writers fabricated his own version. A lie if you will. This to me is not a minute detail it is at the heart of Chrisitanity itself - ie the resurrection is a myth.

Can you answer this without casting yourself into the offended victim's role?

Layman

Let's look at the logic here.

1. If Matthew and John disagree, then one of them fabricated his own version.

2. Because either Matthew or John is a fabrication, the resurrection is a myth.

Why is either one of these true?

If Matthew and John disagree on one item, or two items, or many items, it certainly does not necessarily follow that one "fabricated" his version. It is quite possible that there is one item, or two items, or many items, about which they had different reports, or understood reports differently.

And if Matthew or John "fabricated" his version of the resurrection, it does not necessarily follow that the very idea of the resurrection itself is a myth. If one person lies, that does not mean the other lied.

This is very simplistic.

Family Man

To some extent, I have to agree with Layman here. To say that the contradictions in the Resurrections qualifies it as myth is clearly false. There are many accounts from antiquity that describe real events in contradictory terms but that are nevertheless accepted as historical. The contradictions of the resurrection is a good argument against inerrancy, not historicity.

However, that doesn't mean that the resurrection isn't a myth. It's a myth because it deals with supernatural events outside the range of normal human events. It's a myth because the story grows in the telling. It's a myth because the story was relayed in a document written to promote belief, not history. It is simplistic to say it's not a myth because it happened to be written down in someone's holy book.

Undoubtably, there will be Christians who will take great exception to this. To those, my challenge is this: show us one non-Christian story dealing with the supernatural that is generally accepted as a true event. If you can't do that, you have no right to indulge in special pleading for you own favorite supernatural story.

NOGO

The way you talk about it, as one item, two items makes it sound as though Matthew and John are saying the same thing and only differing in small details. Actually Matthew's story and John's story are TOTALLY different. One of them MUST have been fabriacted and therefore a lie.

I agree that just because one person fabricated a version of a story does not make it necessarily a myth. But it does do something to your credibility.

Essentially I want Radorth to acknowledge that Christians did fabricate evidence.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vinnie

There is internal evidence in John that he "condensed" his resurrection report as probably did the other evangelists. Supposedly it only has Mary Magdalene right? But read John 20:2 and ask yourself who is the "we" that Mary speaks of. it seems to imply there were others, who went unmentioned by the author of GJohn, ith her. It also means the author of GJohn was aware of this.

Also given Marcan priority (Matt and Luke used and copied Mark as a source) we note that Matthew dropped Salome from the list. Luke simply changed it into the woman but later reports it was the two Mary's and Joanna and others. He too dropped Salome.

Personally, I think the accounts can be harmonized a good deal and if they were exactly alike skeptics would be arguing collusion anyways. It may be noteworthy that Luke has a name not mentioned by Mark whom he copied. Some would take the "harmonizable details", turn them and use them to argue for the historicity of it. And minor details actually disagreeing on something is not enough to overturn the historicty of something as far as I know. Something I read about Hannibal comes to mind.

I'm not sure the resurrection accounts can be completely harmonized though.

Vinine

Radorth

Really? Doherty says they came from the same source, and even has another free-thinking scholar who says so. Also, I thought the later Christians were redacting and burning all the stuff that brought the story into question? Are you now saying they had no interest in putting out the same story?

Man, somebody is fooling with history here. Funny how "rational" thinkers can't agree on anything.

Radorth

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Not in your eyes. The only victim here is the truth, a victim of the "skeptics" ever-changing premises and the definition of "rational." Nah, I'm here mostly for the fun of satirizing what passes for "free-thinking" here Nogo.

In fact I wish I could be around when Christianity wanes, and the Muslims and skeptics rule the world. I would die laughing, except that evil will doubtless abound and nuclear war will destroy the world and everyone in it. (Unless Jesus comes back of course)

'Tis not I who is on a crusade here, for I do not believe Christianity has much of a hope in this world.

Radorth