Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 04-19-2006, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Yeah I read it and I can't seem to see where Luke says that the women did not see Jesus. He just doesn't mention it here. Move along folks no contradiction here.

Edit:
I see you bolded a portion you think relevant. That merely says that they found the tomb empty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 24

22Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

23And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

24And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

Pay close attention to verse 23. The women are reported as telling the disciples that they saw angels but didn't see Jesus's body. Now if the women actually saw Jesus, why would they neglect to mention this? Why would they say that they didn't see his body if they saw him in the flesh? It does you no good to claim that the women saw him at a later time, because Matthew places the appearance of Jesus to the women before they told the disciples.

Sven · 04-19-2006, 02:37 AM

Buckshot: Meet the Easter challenge.

Buckshot - Easter challenge
Easter challenge - buckshot

buckshot23 · 04-19-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The fact that Luke declines to inform his audience of Jesus' first appearance is such a significant, glaring and inexplicable omission as to constitute a genuine contradiction.

Opinion based upon nothing.

Quote:

Sorry. Your Macdonald's analogy just doesn't old water. There is no difference betwee saying you had a combo and enumerating the items included in the combo.

Maybe you misread, in the analogy I first said I had a burger and fries for lunch and then later told another friend that I had a number 1 combo which happens to include a drink. By the standards here I would be in error when I merely said I had a burger and fries when in totality I had a drink with it.

Quote:

And as I said, there are a lot more contradictions than that one.

Which maybe the case but it in no way affects this one.

buckshot23 · 04-19-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Buckshot: Meet the Easter challenge.

Buckshot - Easter challenge
Easter challenge - buckshot

Sven - url not found
url not found - sven

post tenebras lux · 04-19-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Sven - url not found
url not found - sven

Odd, it works for me.

Here is is in longhand --> http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

buckshot23 · 04-19-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Odd, it works for me.

Here is is in longhand --> http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

Works now. Thanks

Sven · 04-19-2006, 08:39 AM

Perhaps this works better:
http://www.buffaloatheists.com/artic...up1/easter.htm

But just googling for "easter challenge dan barker" turns up more hits. Including ones which link to websites of Holding/Turkel, who already failed in a formal debate here at IIDB to meet the challenge (but nevertheless boasted that he did - surprise, surprise).

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Opinion based upon nothing.

No, it's the only logical inference which can be drawn. It is patently unreasonable to conclude that Luke would deliberately omit Jesus' very first appearance after the crucifixion had he known about it.

Quote:

Maybe you misread, in the analogy I first said I had a burger and fries for lunch and then later told another friend that I had a number 1 combo which happens to include a drink. By the standards here I would be in error when I merely said I had a burger and fries when in totality I had a drink with it.

This is ridiculous. It's more akin to telling one person you had a combo at noon and another that you had a buger, fries and drink at 1:00 and then trying to reconcile those statements by claiming that you actually ate lunch twice. Actually, it's even more problematic than that. It's like someone else (who wasn't there and has never met you) telling me that you had lunch at noon and then an entirely different non-witness (who knows nothing of the first witness) telling me that you had lunch at 1:00 and then having yet another non-witness (who has never met either of the first two non-witnesses) telling me that those statements can be reconciled by assuming you ate lunch twice. It's a ridiculous ad hoc argument designed solely to protect an a priori and unsupported assumption that the first two non-witnesses can't contradict each other.

The Bishop · 04-19-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

This is ridiculous. It's more akin to telling one person you had a combo at noon and another that you had a buger, fries and drink at 1:00 and then trying to reconcile those statements by claiming that you actually ate lunch twice.

This is why i'm not impressed with the Easter Challenge. People don't reconcile their stories that way, and it's unreasonable to hold them to that kind of standard. When one makes such a challenge, one is generally engaged in debate with fundamentalists whose faith is predicated on the utter reliability of the Bible - but such people are irrational to begin with, so why is one trying to engage them in rational debate?

In any case, if we return to Odemus's original question:

Quote:

I'd be very grateful for any direction in demonstrating that the Bible is entirely a terrestrial creation and full of identifiable falsehoods or innacuracies and that sort of thing.

What if it wasn't full of identifiable falsehoods or inaccuracies? If you no longer believe in God, why does that non-belief need propping up by chance mistakes in one particular set of books known as Scripture? To be sure, some people do prop up their belief in God by regarding those books as inerrant, but if that is an erroneous attitude, then surely using the same grounds for the opposite purpose is erroneous, too?

Incidentally, it's quite clear that your Pastor, and me in this post, was talking about the New Testament texts. Christians have all sorts of ways of arguing round the problems in the Old Testament (not least of which is regarding the whole thing as a "type" of the Christ story) but those involve acknowledging that the OT is indeed loaded with anachronisms. It is precisely because the Gospels do a great deal better (than, say, the story of Moses or the book of Daniel) that your ex-Pastor made a point of making that claim about it.

If your ex-pastor is promoting the fulfillment of prophecy, well, it constantly stuns me that even die-hard Christians take prophecy as seriously as they do. As a fairly young child I was told that Jesus was foretold in Isaiah - and I can remember noticing straight away that, well, Jesus wasn't called Immanuel!

John Kesler · 04-19-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Holding/Turkel, who already failed in a formal debate here at IIDB to meet the challenge (but nevertheless boasted that he did - surprise, surprise).

What is the link for this debate?

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

04-19-2006, 02:37 AM	#22
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	Buckshot: Meet the Easter challenge. Buckshot - Easter challenge Easter challenge - buckshot

04-19-2006, 08:39 AM	#27
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	Perhaps this works better: http://www.buffaloatheists.com/artic...up1/easter.htm But just googling for "easter challenge dan barker" turns up more hits. Including ones which link to websites of Holding/Turkel, who already failed in a formal debate here at IIDB to meet the challenge (but nevertheless boasted that he did - surprise, surprise).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.