Keith&Co.

Stupid may not be the word. But look how they spent those years.

Jesus says he'll do something.
The disciples say no way.
Jesus says way.
Jesus does what he said he'd do.
Disciples are poleaxed.
time passes.
Repeat for each miracle.

At no point do any of them say, Whoa, guys, if Jesus-man says he can do it, i'm beginning to believe he can do it.

In modern literature, you couldn't get away with such behavior unless the characters were, indeed, dumber than a bag of hammers. For the literary conventions of the time, it's possible you could have foils that never grew as characters during the duration of the novel.

I think it's quite in character for them to react this way.
Jesus is alive.
No way.
Way.
No freakin' WAY!
Way.
Prove it!
'Kay. Feel my Roman-holes.
No way!

Amaleq13

This is where you go wrong. I did not tell you that you were wrong "because" I know more than you. I denied your assertion and tried to caution you against babbling nonsense in support of it because I happen to know quite a bit about the subject. You really need to slow down when reading because you have been consistently misinterpreting.

No, that is the reason I will recognize bullshit for what it is. Please pay attention. Note the explicit caution attached to the information about my background knowledge.

Then your narrative differs from the stories it is supposed to summarize and fails the challenge. :huh:

They don't need to understand how or whether the angels did it and they don't need to know his location to refute your argument. All that is needed is that they understand he is alive and this is clear from the texts. They heard and understood he was alive and reacted with joy (and fear )and related this to the disciples. The incompatibility with Mary's concerns in John remains.

I was responding to your statement about a "body".

For someone who recently denounced "semantics games" [sic], you show an odd fondness for them. In this context, there can be no rational question whether "laid" refers to the disposition of a corpse.

Jesus fucking Christ I put it in bold and you still screw it up? I'm really getting tired of your incredibly sloppy reading skills.

If you lack sufficient comprehension of the English language to recognize that one cannot be both very happy to learn something and doubtful that it is true, I'm not sure I can help you. If that is your position, I'm afraid you have slipped too far from rationality for an intelligent discussion. Is that a strategy?

What the angels said was that he was alive so that appears to agree with my statement rather than deny it. :huh:

On what planet does one respond to a lack of evidence with fear? Not this one unless it is evidence of one's innocence in a trial. They didn't need evidence to respond joyfully but the lack of it scared them? You need to work on your ironing because you appear to be making more wrinkles as you attempt to smooth this one.

That they "knew he was alive" is all that is needed to conflict with Mary's concern. The rest is irrelevant even if true.

How else would you characterize information conveyed with the intent to allay the apparent fear of the women? You might want to use that dictionary of yours.

If they had fear in response to the absence of the body in addition to their fear in response to the angel, then the reassurance of the angel did reduce that fear. But the angels were still angels so still scary to them. They knew he was alive so they would have no "perplexment" [sic] about the location of his body.

Their joyful reaction to the news that Jesus was alive says otherwise regarding reassurance.

We've already seen the passage that indicates the presence of an angel, by itself, was sufficient to cause fear. The angels continued to be angels so a continuation of the fear is appropriate.

Even that watered-down position is inconsistent with Mary's concerns in John. If you "hope" someone is alive, you don't express concern about where he has been laid. That is the opposite of hoping someone is alive. It is knowing someone is dead but not knowing the location of their body.

Amaleq13

“Joy is incompatible with doubt” Chivalry, Francis Warre Cornish, pg 201



Closer to home:

“Undoubtedly this great joy, this exultation with which he accompanies the fear and trembling of believers is incompatible with doubt, uncertainty, and mistrust; but agrees very well with humility and reverence to God.” An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, Rev. Jean Daille, p69

The author refers to a Psalm passage which I believe is 2:11:
“Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.”

It ain't just me, amigo. I've even got a reverend on my side.

dr lazer blast

Why did you deny my assertion? answer the question please.


more semantic games. Was my b.s wrong or right? answer the question please.


wrong. Allow me to repost it. taken from post #86 so please understand the context

Bolded is in Matthew 28.

As you can see the part about understanding was already ironed out between atheos and I. Jesus increased all of their understand after everyone got back to the house, so you're once again wrong. According to my narrative he opened their understanding after everyone got there.


wrong. They have a misunderstanding about what happened. That is why Jesus needed to 'open their understanding'

according to my narrative and not yours. My narrative states they had a misunderstanding.



argument from silence. Laid can be referred to the placement of the live body of Christ.


You have offered no evidence. This is what you put in bold "Joy and doubt are incompatible" but you have offered NO EVIDENCE to support your assertion. All you are doing is asserting Joy and Doubt are incompatible, but offering no evidence. BALD ASSERTIONS. No EVIDENCE.

Joy and doubt are incompatible, should I just take your word for it? will you take my word for joy and doubt being COMPATIBLE?

Give me EVIDENCE.


Here is evidence to support my claim.

"Ay your friend just got hurt in a bad accident"

"no way man, no freaking way, I just saw him 20 minutes ago" (doubt)

'ya hes in the ambulance right now, hes in stable condition'

man, thats good, I really hope he's going to be ok" (Joy in the form of hope)







I am so tired of your little games. There was no 'response' there was DEPARTURE with joy and fear. We don't know how they responded.

I am asserting in my narrative that they departed with joy and fear. I have not asserted any type of response.


wrong, the story of Christ rising from the dead was difficult to understand.

My narrative asserts that they angels told them Christ has risen. They departed with Joy and Fear. Joy in the form of hope, and fear in the form of doubt.







Incorrect, as they could still be perplexed about the angels as well.



this is not your narrative, my narrative states that when they left the tomb, they departed with fear in the form of doubt because they had not seen proof.


Wrong.

Mary Hoped Jesus was alive, but wanted to see proof for herself. The news of the angels brought her joy, but until she saw proof, she could not get rid of her fear in the form of doubt.

"Your friend was in an accident"
"no, thats not true, I don't believe it" (doubt)
"hes on his way to the hospital right now, something weird happened, they said he was dead but now he's alive, go tell his family"
"what happened to him? are you playing with me? is this serious? I'll take your word for it, man hope he's ok"

"Jesus rose from the dead"
"but I don't see the body" (doubt)
"He goes before you into Galilee, Go tell the disciples"
*not having any proof*
"you're telling me alive, but havn't shown me any proof, or told me an exact location?, well, I hope you're telling the truth" (hope)

Mary runs off with fear in the form of doubt (no proof) and joy in the form of hope (the combination of not understanding the ressurection, and hoping the angels are telling the truth)

dr lazer blast

Context? humans experience a great deal of emotions in many situations, supernatural situations can easily cause a mixture of joy and doubt. Joy that they experienced the supernatural, and doubt that it is quite possible it didn't happen.



Once again, context, that is a command to serve the Lord, that is not saying "Joy is incompatible with doubt in all situations" it is saying that in this context, in this situation joy is incompatible with doubt, which I totally agree with, however you're using the fallacy that 'what is true for some is true for all' (don't remember the name) so once again, in some cases joy is COMPATIBLE with doubt, and in some cases its not.

sschlichter

Why couldn't she be experiencing joy that is conflicting with her doubt. Can't she be experiencing 2 incomptabile and conflicting emotions?

Amaleq13

Obviously because I don't believe it is true. Do you have any support for your assertion?

Are you aware that not all appeals to authority are logically fallacious? If the authority in question actually does know more than you, such an appeal is entirely logical.

This is such a stupid tangent. :banghead:

So you are assuming the women were part of "them that were with them"? That is reasonable. (See? When you make sense I agree with you. ). However, since we are told elsewhere that the women understand he is alive, that cannot be what became understood only after Jesus explained it. And that understanding is what you need to remove in order to escape the incompatibility with Mary's concerns.

Does your narrative deny that they understood Jesus was alive? If so, it contradicts the texts. If not, the inconsistency remains. :huh:

I really wish you would obtain a correct understanding of an argument from silence because you have yet to apply it accurately.

Regarding John 20:2:

“Mary wasn’t wishing for a resurrection, and then hopefully imagined it. She had no thought of resurrection yet, and believed the corpse has been stolen.” Pastor David Guzik, Study Guide for John 20, online Blue Letter Bible

It ain't just me, amigo.

I was hoping for sufficient English comprehension on your part but see above.

Do you really consider a fabricated "analogy" to constitute evidence?

Do you really not understand that the doubt must follow the joy in order to be analogous?

Emphasis mine. :rolling:

We've already seen the passage that indicates they understood he was alive and that is all that is needed to conflict with Mary's concern about the disposition of his dead body in John.

In what sense is this not a description of their response to the angels message?

Yes and that continues to make no sense since it is incompatible with their joy upon understanding that the angels were telling them Jesus was alive.

Amaleq13

If you think it is reasonable for her to simultaneously be joyful that Jesus is alive and still ask the question in John 20:2, I don't know that there is anything I can offer than will help you.

dr lazer blast

circular argument.
DLB: Why don't you believe it to be true?
A13:because I denied your assertion
DLB:why did you deny my assertion?
A:13 because I don't believe it to be true


wrong. She did not understand HOW Christ came to be ressurected. Mary hopes shes alive, ok thats fine, but she doesn't understand HOW, Mary thinks the Angels resurrected Jesus, thus the reason why Jesus needed to open their understanding


Mary hopes shes alive, but she doesn't understand HOW, Mary thinks the Angels resurrected Jesus. Thus the reason why Jesus needed to open their understanding.



argument from authority. Just because of what Pastor David Guzik says, doesn't make my point any less valid, we may just have different opinions about it.


.
Joy is compatible with doubt. There the english comprehension is sufficient enough to prove my baseless assertions as well, also you should see my response to those, as the context was not clear in either of those examples.


not fabricated, responses like that happen everyday.

possibilities, however the word 'and' could easily be interpreted as 'then' as you can see in the dictionary reference.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and

3. then: He read for an hour and went to bed.

in the same context as the definition, they departed with joy and fear.



sometimes I get caught up in your sematic games.

wrong, just because she hopes hes alive doesn't mean she had the proper understanding of it, because she did not have the proper understanding of what happened, that allowed her to have hope that what the angels were saying was correct, and doubt that she didn't have proof of what the angels said.


nope, maybe in your narrative but not in mine, I only talk about departure not 'reaction'.

Net2004

"Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

between which 2 verses in the above account does mary m leave the scene to report about the stolen body?