Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jab · 07-10-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast
every time you mention that pastor I am just going to refer you to the link.

Now poor blast is reduced to arguing from authority. which in his case is the fallacy of the double standard.

thentian · 07-11-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

Quote:

The text itself contradicts you, or rather, you are contradicting it. The sentence "they ran and told Peter" is in itself a direct contradiction of "they told nobody". There is no need for me to "prove" this beyond pointing out that the two sentences are mutually incompatible. Just as it is incompatible with being truthful for you to say "I told nobody" if in fact you told your wife. It doesn't help if you later come along and say "of course I had to tell my wife, so when I said I had told nobody, I really meant nobody except my wife".

You continue to ignore the rules of the challenge, this is not about your interpretation of the scripture, this is my interpretation of the scripture, since I am the one giving the narrative. You must find fault in the way I interpret the scripture i.e. the narrative, not the scripture itself.

Disingenuous and mendacious: He is criticizing your "interpretation" of parts of the "New Testament" as being deeply inaccurate, and inadequate. Your inability or unwillingness to read other posters' posts accurately and in good faith undercuts any faith we may have in your ability to read the Gospels accurately and in good faith.

Friend! >

<

*Wipes tears*

Hmm... people reading that quote could easily think it was made by one person, not me writing the first paragraph and dlb the second. So my friendly advice is to make sure such quotes are more correct in the future.

gurugeorge · 07-11-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

The answer you have given here is NOT an answer. This is a conclusion you have come to AFTER accepting the Bible and the claims of Christianity.

No that was the conlcusion I came to BEFORE accepting the bible and claims of christianity. Before I was a christian I knew that Jesus died for my sins, and you (probably not being a christian) know that as well. How is that not an answer?

Because you didn't know any such thing: you'd merely heard people say it and claim it was knowledge.

In order to discover whether or not it was knowledge you'd have to test it to destruction, and only if it withstood such critical scrutiny, would you be justified in rationally accepting it, just so long as it continued to withstand critical scrutiny in the light of any new developments.

Of course there's lots of trivial stuff we accept without such rigorous testing, and if it's shown to be wrong, we shrug. But in such a matter as monumentally important (to you at least) as the welfare of your "eternal soul" (whatever that may be, it certainly sounds important), one would think you'd be as critical as you possibly could be, just to make sure you didn't make a huge, horrible mistake in the matter.

After all, what if it's not "Jesus" but some other deity on the other side of the world that you've never heard of who's really important to the welfare of your eternal soul? And how would you know, how could you possibly decide, what would be your method of plumping for one or the other? And how do you know you even have such a thing to "save"?

angelo · 07-11-2008, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

As has been stated before, it's like an auto accident where one says the cars are red and green, another says they were brown and black.

great example! Assuming we are talking about the same cars, then that is a contradiction. So where is a contradiction like that? Where in these 6 passages are there 2 statements that logically negate each other.

so far, I have seen, "one says Mary, one says Mary and others". These are not a contradction, thay are varying degrees of information. You have provided an example of a contradiction, now do you find any?

~Steve

Some one stuffed up the quotation marks. Their not my quotes.
I don't agree at all with that statement. The contradictions are not simply a mistake in the colour of the cars. They are a whole lot more than that.
Their like a bus and a car colliding to a motorbike and tractor colliding.
A whole different story.
I've posted my views back a page or two. :wave:

thentian · 07-11-2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

great example! Assuming we are talking about the same cars, then that is a contradiction. So where is a contradiction like that? Where in these 6 passages are there 2 statements that logically negate each other.

so far, I have seen, "one says Mary, one says Mary and others". These are not a contradction, thay are varying degrees of information. You have provided an example of a contradiction, now do you find any?

~Steve

Some one stuffed up the quotation marks. Their not my quotes.
I don't agree at all with that statement. The contradictions are not simply a mistake in the colour of the cars. They are a whole lot more than that.
Their like a bus and a car colliding to a motorbike and tractor colliding.
A whole different story.
I've posted my views back a page or two. :wave:

I think the comparison to accident witnesses is a bad one. The gospel writers are supposed to be relating the infallible, divinely inspired, Word of God. Not normal people who forget to mention vital parts of the story, mess up the order in which the events happened and can't agree on who was where, when, and who said what, where.

That's why I'm so surprised that the apologists here treat the texts in such a liberal manner (At least it seems to me that they do). That writer just didn't bother to mention this part because he was "filling in" what another wrote? But it would be more than two hundred years before anyone was going to assemble the gospels into the NT so people could get "the full story"!

sschlichter · 07-11-2008, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

the greek version does not say suddenly.

~Steve

Well several versions say "suddenly" or that it happened while on the way to the disciples. Are they just making it up?

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C028.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:9;&version=9;

no, they are interpretting as they translate. it is an unfortunate and necessary side effect of translation.

they interpret jesus appearing to be an interuption of some sort so they use suddenly instead of behold. regardless, it does not mean suddenly and before meeting the disciples.

this very clearly occurs after the verse where they run and tell the disciples, doesn't it?

~Steve

sschlichter · 07-11-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Some one stuffed up the quotation marks. Their not my quotes.
I don't agree at all with that statement. The contradictions are not simply a mistake in the colour of the cars. They are a whole lot more than that.
Their like a bus and a car colliding to a motorbike and tractor colliding.
A whole different story.
I've posted my views back a page or two. :wave:

I think the comparison to accident witnesses is a bad one. The gospel writers are supposed to be relating the infallible, divinely inspired, Word of God. Not normal people who forget to mention vital parts of the story, mess up the order in which the events happened and can't agree on who was where, when, and who said what, where.

That's why I'm so surprised that the apologists here treat the texts in such a liberal manner (At least it seems to me that they do). That writer just didn't bother to mention this part because he was "filling in" what another wrote? But it would be more than two hundred years before anyone was going to assemble the gospels into the NT so people could get "the full story"!

there is little doubt, imo that John wrote later and supplied information that did not exist in the other gospels. I think it is also common opinion that matt and luke drew from mark.

~steve

thentian · 07-11-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

this very clearly occurs after the verse where they run and tell the disciples, doesn't it?

~Steve

No, the meeting with J very clearly occurs immediately after leaving the grave (and therefore before meeting the disciples), and I just learned why this is clearly the case:

Matthew uses KAI as a literary device to tie events together, so if a verse starts with KAI, the event following that comes immediately after the event before.

That is precisely the case with 28:9

This of course also explains why those translators used "suddenly" in NIV and other versions. "And" (KAI) does not convey that immediacity so well in english, so they needed to convey the meaning in some other way.

A good example of how Matthew uses KAI is found in Matt 4:17 onwards:

"From that time Jesus began to preach, KAI to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 18 KAI Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 KAI he saith unto them, Follow me, KAI I will make you fishers of men. 20 KAI they straightway left their nets, KAI followed him. 21 KAI going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; KAI he called them. 22 KAI they immediately left the ship and their father, KAI followed him."

In your defence I'll say that I'm sure you wouldn't have read 28: 8-9 differently from me if you had not been thinking about this silly "Easter Challenge". Same goes for "remembered what he said" which we went through earlier! I'm sure you would quickly have realized what it has to mean there as well, if you hadn't been reading four gospels in paralell. (Gosh, I fell so magnanimous, now!)

Cheers!

ETA: Oh, and I shan't deprive you of how I found out about KAI! Net2004 gave me this very useful link:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/ii_err...=d&start=42349

-
-
-

Quote:

there is little doubt, imo that John wrote later and supplied information that did not exist in the other gospels. I think it is also common opinion that matt and luke drew from mark.

~steve

No problem with that, but then you also have to notice that Matthew does not mention important events mentioned by John. Did he know that John was going to mention the women telling Peter about the angels, and Peter's subsequent trip to the grave? If not, how could he leave out such important information? The answer has to be that he simply didn't know about it, because had he known, then no way would he have not mentioned it! Therefore, the chain of events he relates has to be the one he knows, and the one which a straight reading of Matthew: 28 gives us. (The sequence I gave in an earlier post)

Doug Shaver · 07-11-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

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.

I see. So, when the disciples said "He is risen" and their adversaries said "He is not risen," then considering my ignorance of the languages and culture of the times, they could have been saying the same thing?

Doug Shaver · 07-11-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

usually, the author is aware that they are writing fiction.

Yes, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

This author does not seem to be.

If he had been, what would he have done differently? And how do you know that?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.