Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 11-03-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Your post was just a representation of your re-born thoughts about typing on the keyboard.

It wasn't a literal post...

Must have been. The problem is that I forgot what I wrote.

Should I do another one?

Chili · 11-04-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Your post was just a representation of your re-born thoughts about typing on the keyboard.

It wasn't a literal post...

Yes it was and I found it.

Johnny go see in "Elswhere" where I added a logical explanation for the women at the tomb.

Should I continue with the rest?

Sensei Meela · 11-08-2004, 06:26 PM

Hmph...I had expected something much more ludicrous. Apart from some repetitiveness, it actually isn't too nonsensical...unless I just missed it all.

moorezw · 11-10-2004, 09:49 AM

Despite my liberal harmonization attempt , I found that the fact that Mary does not recognize the risen Jesus upon seeing him for a second time is the most glaring contradiction between the accounts.

Chili · 11-10-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moorezw

Despite my liberal harmonization attempt , I found that the fact that Mary does not recognize the risen Jesus upon seeing him for a second time is the most glaring contradiction between the accounts.

Not a problem. Just do away with the synoptic idea.

Quote:

Conclusions

The first paragraph in my harmonization contains a sticky issue- the time at which the women arrived at the tomb. Mark indicates that it was "when the sun had risen," Luke says that it was "at early dawn," but John records that it was "while it was still dark." I decided that Matthew's version, "as it began to dawn," was a good compromise between the admittedly minor differences in details.

No need to compromise here. Mark is the rational non-religious perspective which goes by the light of common day and hence the sun was out. Luke is from the subconscious mind (wherein lies heaven) and he is aware that Mary theotokos and Mary M are the greater and lesser serpent that announce the light of common day. John knows that the light of common day will not come around that day and therefore it remained dark (ie, we 'look with our eyes' but 'we see with our mind').

Quote:

The second paragraph comes solely from Matthew, and I have chosen a translation which indicates that the earthquake occurred in the pluperfect tense, that is, it happened in the past before the events described there. I understand that there is a great deal of debate about the choice of this tense, but I decided to err on the side of harmonization, for the benefit of this exercise.

The earthquake belongs to Matthew for whom only the old earth passed when the New Earth came. Mark doesn't know the difference and Luke never was part of the old earth.

Quote:

The third paragraph also contains a contested issue- whether men or angels appear at the tomb. A common argument is that the authors who describe men intend for their readers to understand them to be angels. Since only one gospel explicitly calls them angels, I decided to use 'men' as the description in my harmonization.

The angel of the Lord is Raphael and the two gaurds were Lucifer and Adam with Lucifer being the Morning Star and Adam for whom the morning star shines (they were like bosom buddies of the old world).

Luke has two men there and they were John B and Jesus to be raised as Christ(these two were bosom buddies of the New World). Mark has the one man there who ran away naked as Jesus son of man to be raised.

Quote:

The fifth paragraph also contains a troubling passage- that of Mark, who records that the women were afraid, and spoke to no one. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the other gospels, which record the women as going directly to the disciples and reporting what they had seen. In addition, Matthew characterizes them as joyful, not afraid. I have omitted the Markan characterization, since I can find no way to resolve it with the other accounts. I conclude this to be the first of the irresolvable contradictions between the accounts.

There was no need to talk to anyone because Mark doesn't know about the religious relationship between these two Mary's and the disciples whence arises their duty to report to the disciples. In Matthew it was "the good news" and they should be happy.

Quote:

The major contradiction in this harmonization is evidenced by the tears of Mary Magdalene, derived from the text of John.

John is the perspective of the new religion (I call it the Catholic gospel) and only sees Mary M crying because her man is gone. But notice that when Jesus speaks she knows his voice . . . which was the voice of Jesus-the-Christ who she had met in the gospel.

It is wrong for Mary to cling to the old crucified Jesus for he must be raised without attachements. "My Father and your Father and my God and your God" clearly indicates that the disciples were the personified eidetic images of Jesus ben Joseph.

Quote:

I decided to end this harmonization with the ascension in Luke. No other gospel account records an ascension; Matthew ends with the Great Commission, and John ends with the nebulous suggestion that Jesus' ministry after his resurrection was productive enough to fill countless volumes with his deeds. The locations are also different between the three- John ends at the Sea of Tiberias, Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee, and Luke ends in Bethany. I don't consider this a contradiction in the context of this harmonization- just a lot of moving about by Jesus and the disciples.

Only Luke knows about ascension and Matthew wants to spead the good news to all nations because he doesn't know that ascension takes place in the mind of the beholder. In John ascension is brought down to this level with the exclamation made by Thomas "My Lord and my God!" when all doubt was removed.

Sea of Tiberias is the celestial sea wherein the old earth became absorbed by means of ascension, the mountian in Galilee was the high point of the messainic movement = end of Purgatory, Bethany always was in Eden and Mark would not have a clue about these descriptoins of heaven on earth.

Quote:

In conclusion, I have found one external and one internal contradiction in my harmonization. I am certain that a more rigorous analysis could show more, but it was my intent to be as lenient as possible. However, despite my leniency, contradictions are apparent. I hope that this exercise will be as beneficial to others as it has been to me.

Very good.

Silent Dave · 11-10-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eckz

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html

Can someone more knowledgable than me refute that?

There's a universal refutation to absolutely everything that Robert Turkel ("J.P. Holding") hsa ever written. It goes like this:

TURKEL: We.

SILENT DAVE: Asshole.

MILES DAVIS: Yeah.

QED.

Dave

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

11-08-2004, 06:26 PM	#23
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	Hmph...I had expected something much more ludicrous. Apart from some repetitiveness, it actually isn't too nonsensical...unless I just missed it all.

11-10-2004, 09:49 AM	#24
moorezw Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 31	Despite my liberal harmonization attempt , I found that the fact that Mary does not recognize the risen Jesus upon seeing him for a second time is the most glaring contradiction between the accounts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.