Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-14-2011, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... We certainly don't trust everything that Mark wrote, but the critical scholars use criteria to sort the historical from the mythical. The account that women discovered the empty tomb counts for dissimilarity. Women in that culture were of a lower class, they would be much less likely than men to be trusted, especially on claims that are extraordinary. The fact that Mark wrote that the women didn't tell anyone seems to be best explained as Mark implicitly telling the reader, "I am not actually trusting the testimony of these women on this... just trust me that there are good reasons for believing the empty tomb," which of course the author of Mark didn't get into.

Why should I now TRUST your speculation. This is what is so wrong. You COME up with AD HOC " best excuses" (explanations) whenever you have difficulties.

How do you GRADE your "explanations" so high?

You have the "BEST EXPLANATION" for every thing in the Jesus story.

Now, you can read the author of gMark's mind!!!

When is this nonsense going to end?

ApostateAbe, when are you going to get some ACTUAL credible sources of antiquity to show that Jesus did actually exist and was BAPTISED?

It is KNOWN already that you think you have the BEST EXPLANATION but right now we ONLY need sources of antiquity about Jesus that we can TRUST.

We can't trust the NT Gospels for the BAPTISM since it was a Holy Ghost that was baptized in the Synoptics.

Your BEST source for the Baptism cannot be trusted.

hjalti · 04-14-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

"I am telling you, the tomb was empty."

"How do you know that?"

"Mary Magdalene and Salome, they saw it."

"Two women? You're joking, right?"

So his answer to "How do you know that?" would be: "Two women witnessed it, but they didn't tell anybody about it." That sneaky Mark!

ApostateAbe · 04-14-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

"I am telling you, the tomb was empty."

"How do you know that?"

"Mary Magdalene and Salome, they saw it."

"Two women? You're joking, right?"

So his answer to "How do you know that?" would be: "Two women witnessed it, but they didn't tell anybody about it." That sneaky Mark!

Mark's answer to that question, at least in the gospel, would be silence. Nevertheless, they have a myth that these two women saw the empty tomb, so that is the myth they tell to serve the interests of Christians, not so much the interests of the skeptical critics.

ApostateAbe · 04-14-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is, and I don't have the evidence handy, except there are multiple sources that do say that Nazareth was a small obscure village, and the expectation that there would be many spellings of "Nazareth" would of course directly follow from that.

You don't have any evidence on the issue, but you are willing to use it in argument. You are willing to make statements that have no basis whatsoever about something you know nothing about, then include it in your claims tells you what your claims are based on.

The spellings of Nazareth are all based on literary causes, but ApostateAbe wouldn't know that. He hasn't looked into the issue at any depth.

I challenge ApostateAbe to a debate on the issue of Nazareth. That will allow him to get the evidence handy to defend his apparently ludicrous view on the issue.

I debated the issue of Nazareth with you some time ago, and you lost.

spin · 04-14-2011, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I also think that my explanation has the advantage of explanatory power.

Translated: ApostateAbe's opinion is the one he likes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Since Mark sourced from evangelistic myth, we can expect him to be acquainted with the problem.

"I am telling you, the tomb was empty."

"How do you know that?"

"Mary Magdalene and Salome, they saw it."

"Two women? You're joking, right?"

A joke alright. Modern sexist retrojection. If it was the normal role of women to anoint a body, what is the problem if women, having a reason to go to a dead body, return with the news? It's ApostateAbe's opinion that nobody would listen to them, so it musta really happened this way.

This is part of another ApostateAbe jesus hystericism spree. Jesus musta really existed because I can't think of any way for him notta. ApostateAbe has his ass covered with his abuse of "best explanations". It doesn't matter that his arguments are based purely on text. He can make real world information from text: "Watch me pull a rabbit outa my sleeve."

hjalti · 04-14-2011, 09:14 PM

So this is what happened:

Christians had a myth about women visiting the tomb and telling the disciples about it.

Mark, the first evidence we have about this myth, leaves out the part about the women telling about it, because he didn't want to have women as witnesses, because they were unreliable.

Later authors restore the part about women telling the disciples about the tomb.

spin · 04-14-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You don't have any evidence on the issue, but you are willing to use it in argument. You are willing to make statements that have no basis whatsoever about something you know nothing about, then include it in your claims tells you what your claims are based on.

The spellings of Nazareth are all based on literary causes, but ApostateAbe wouldn't know that. He hasn't looked into the issue at any depth.

I challenge ApostateAbe to a debate on the issue of Nazareth. That will allow him to get the evidence handy to defend his apparently ludicrous view on the issue.

I debated the issue of Nazareth with you some time ago, and you lost.

:hysterical: Where exactly did you debate the issue??

hjalti · 04-14-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

I debated the issue of Nazareth with you [spin] some time ago, and you lost.

Toto · 04-14-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

...

I challenge ApostateAbe to a debate on the issue of Nazareth. That will allow him to get the evidence handy to defend his apparently ludicrous view on the issue.

I debated the issue of Nazareth with you some time ago, and you lost.

No one knows about this because Abe's win was only witnessed by two women (or 3? plus an angel) and they didn't tell anyone. :Cheeky:

aa5874 · 04-14-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I have to admit that I have never heard that explanation before, so you get credit for imagination. But your explanationjust doesn't make any sense at all. If the women didn't tell anyone, Mark seems to be implicitly explaining to his readers why they haven't heard anything like this before.

I think that mainstream scholars are more likely to speculate about a lost ending of Mark, that was replaced with the obviously tacked on ending that is on some but not all manuscripts. There is also speculation that there was an original ending of Mark that ended up in John when some pages of a codex were shuffled around.

OK. I don't think there is much implausible about Mark ending the way it did. It was an early gospel, and its myths were not as well developed, so we really don't necessarily expect an ending that elegantly rounds up the whole narrative. As an example, Q was even less developed as a mythical narrative. And we don't plausibly expect that someone got their papers mixed up or whatever. They were extremely valuable material, not TPS reports.

I also think that my explanation has the advantage of explanatory power. Since Mark sourced from evangelistic myth, we can expect him to be acquainted with the problem.

"I am telling you, the tomb was empty."

"How do you know that?"

"Mary Magdalene and Salome, they saw it."

"Two women? You're joking, right?"

ApostateAbe, you just made up that story. You seem to be the "BEST" AD HOC story teller. No-one can find what you wrote in any source.

You are the "BEST" INVENTOR of imaginary conversations.

Tell me some more about the BAPTISM.

The author of Matthew invented a story that Jesus was the Child of the Ghost and after having made up his Ghost story he realized that it was not necessary for Jesus to have been baptized because he was ALREADY a Sinless Holy Ghost.

What does gMatthew explain?

It does NOT explain history.

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

04-14-2011, 09:14 PM	#96
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	So this is what happened: Christians had a myth about women visiting the tomb and telling the disciples about it. Mark, the first evidence we have about this myth, leaves out the part about the women telling about it, because he didn't want to have women as witnesses, because they were unreliable. Later authors restore the part about women telling the disciples about the tomb.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.