dr lazer blast

wrong, it doesn't have correspondence to your interpretation, you have no argument here, as there are MANY interpretations of scripture, so you're basically telling me that I can't follow the rules set up in the challenge.

Like I said you have no argument here, its not plausible according to your personal dislikes and your personal interpretation of the scripture, and according to logic, your personal dislikes are not valid criticisms.

Not to mention that Mary just didn't doubt, she downright disbelieved the message of the angels, because the assertion that Christ rose from the dead was difficult to believe, which is supported in the text.

Amaleq13

No, I'm telling you that you haven't. And I suspect that you never will.

I'm also quite sure, given the evidence of your effort so far, that you are incapable of meeting the challenge even if you did follow the rules.

This is just another in a long line of utterly and blatantly false characterizations of my argument. I am confident that no one reading this thread is fooled by such an obvious untruth.

There continues to be no support in the text for the notion that Mary "disbelieved" the message of the angels and rather clear evidence that is specifically contrary.

Your effort continues to be implausible and continues to fail to challenge. You have nothing new to say and obviously have no intention of offering anything more substantive than empty repetitions. :wave:

dr lazer blast

and you provided no evidence that I haven't, all you do is assert assert assert, switch up the assertions, rise and repeat.

my narrative is fine and it goes by the rules.


I am confident that no honest inetellectual will take your bald assertions as any form of criticism.

Lets see, another bald assertion, you offer no evidence to back up this claim and offer no evidence that the contrary is true either. Just bald assertions and until you provide EVIDENCE and valid reasoning as to why it isn't plausible, your opinion will be noted, but filed away in the 'personal but not valid criticisms' drawer.

Toto

The discussion on cognitive dissonance has been split off here and may be moved to another forum.

sschlichter

that was a past time while I am eagerly awaiting Mary to come out of the tomb. She appears to be stuck between fear, joy, and disbeleif. I hope she moves along because the disciples are waiting eagerly stage left and they have to get to Galilee soon.

angelo

Which Mary? There's three of them, and even if all clues of each gospels are taken side by side, there's no way we can be certain which Miriam it was that reached the tomb first. If all the authors of the gospels can't agree on such a simple tale as which Miriam it was, the whole tale collapses into just hearsay.
Paul whose writings are regarded as the first makes no mention of any tomb or any Miriams tripping over each other to get to any tomb first.
Also the Q document makes no statement about any tomb either.
As was the custom in those days the crucified were either left on the cross for the vultures to feast on, or buried in shallow graves to be dug up and eaten buy the stray dogs and other wild beasts. So more than likely, there was no body left to place in any tomb. Sounds ghastly to theist, but that's the way life was in those days. Criminals and traitors as Jesus obviously was, were not slapped over their wrists with a wet lettuce as they are today.

sschlichter

side-by-side, it appears to me that a bunch of women, at least 3 of them named were at the tomb. It also appears evident to me that only certain women were important enough to certain authors to mention. Why, if it is not important to them, is it important to you?


I cannot figure out how to get an html table into a post, but if you want to see them side-by-side, I put it here. Scroll down to matt 28:1

http://www.taskautomationpartners.co...nascension.htm

Sheshbazzar

It seems everyone reading these passages (including dr lazer blast) agrees that the text states that "they departed with fear and joy"
The dividing point is over the reason(s) for the existence of that recorded state of "fear and joy".
Every interpretation and commentary that I have ever encountered has followed a plain reading that the cause and the reason generating that "fear and joy" was their experience of those sights and statements that they had seen and heard prior to their departure.
Reading this protracted argument, one cannot help but wonder, to what factors does dr lazar attribute that "fear and joy" if it was not a result and reaction to those things they had just previously seen and heard?
Dr laszer,
We are told that on departure they experienced "fear", omitting the causes related in the preceding narrative, WHY would they be experiencing any "fear" (or "doubt") on their departure?
We are told that on departure they experienced "joy", omitting the details of the preceding narrative, WHY would they be experiencing any "joy" on their departure?
I am not trying to continue an argument, just attempting to understand the logic that you (alone) seem to be employing to arrive at your opinion regarding these verses.
I have read a lot over the years, but have never before encountered the peculiar interpretation that you have been arguing for within these posts. Which of course makes me to wonder, if there is there any identifiable church, denomination, or sect that regularly employs, teaches or shares this unusual and peculiar textual interpretation with you?
In other words, can you supply us with names of those authorities within your church who have produced writings that showing clear support for your unusual interpretation of these verses?

Keith&Co.

This is amazing.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to meet an angel. To have direct knowledge of a being that's that far above mere mortals, along with the implications of the Lord it represents and the message about Jesus being resurrected. It's got to be pretty intense. It would probably affect my emotional profile for the rest of my life.

It would be reasonable to interpret any talk of emotions in the immediate time after such an experience as being related to the experience. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if the fear and joy mentioned in the passages is caused by or connected to anything else at all in the world BUT the Angel, it would require some mention, or there's no reason at all to consider it a possibility.

I mean, one doesn't turn their back on an angel (or two angels) and then get concerned about an untied shoelace. Without some sort of major input to Mary's world view right at that moment, there's nothing to justify claiming that the emotions relate to anything other than the miraculous meeting just past. She could probably step on an asp or a scorpion and still be locked into her angel reaction.

Any rational estimation of the scene has to connect anything Mary (or the Marys) feel(s) at that point to the Angel(s). Probably anything she(they) feel for the rest of the week.

Any other interpretation borders on the ridiculous. It would be similar to a submarine receiving launch codes for the nuclear missiles and immediately staging training so everyone understands the importance of filling out the worksheets for the next test cycle.

dr lazer blast

you're missing the point, I am showing amaleq how he's contradicting himself. He can make assumptions that aren't based upon the text, but he is telling me I can't. Thats absurd. I am just using his logic to show him his own mistakes