James Brown

Are you insinuating that Mary Magdalene was an unreliable witness?

dr lazer blast

When the angel says do not be afraid.

Nice strawman fallacy, I also said that joy came after the message as well. The joy she has AFTER THE MESSAGE is the same joy she got before the message.


This is what I am talking about, you keep saying dead body and that is either a personal opinion or based on your previous posts an argument from authority both which are invalid criticisms. When she talks to peter she refers to 'THEY' and 'THEY' is the angels, the hope described in matthew is that Jesus was not in the tomb so He must be SOMEWHERE but the hopelessness comes from not knowing where, unsure if Hes dead or alive. She is confused and unsure of what has happened i.e perplexed.


another personal opinion, there is no forgetting about her hope, It is entirly plausibile that she either did not believe the angles story or understand the angels story. She went to peter and when she refered to 'THEY' she was talking about the ANGELS. The angels have taken our Lord and we do not know where the angels have lain him, the hope is still there.



the irony, you've done nothing to prove that assertion. You just keep repeating the narrative contradicts the chornology when it doesn't, as I've explained many times that mary still holds the hope when shes talking to peter.



incorrect, that is YOU giving your personal opinon which is not a valid criticism, I am saying that the hope comes from the Jesus's body not being there, which is plausible. The only struggle here is you giving valid criticisms.

Once again you have found yourself at square 1

sschlichter

not at all. I have never met her so I cannot assess the fortitude behind her beleifs.

Amaleq13

I love how you pretend this is what you've been saying all along.:banghead:

So you are keeping Matthew's departing joy and inserting joy upon seeing the angels but before the message?

And the only reason you are adding this to the texts is to avoid acknowledging that the joy Matthew describes is clearly directly connected to the message she just heard?

And you think this helps make your narrative plausible? :rolling:

Wrong on all counts. It is the plain meaning of the text rather than my personal opinion and my reference to Pastor Guzik establishes this quite clearly without being a fallacious appeal to authority. Your failure to comprehend does not invalidate the criticism.

There is no hint of hope in John 20:2 or 20:13. She weeps.

No, it isn't and we've already seen why. Several times. Again, your failure to comprehend does not invalidate the criticism.

Where? One is only concerned about where someone has "lain" a dead body.

Yes and rapidly losing my own hope that you will ever comprehend, let alone adequately address the problems with your narrative.

dr lazer blast

I am only going off of your fallacious criticisms.

im sorry was this supposed to be a criticism? emoticons aren't a valid form of criticisms neither are sarcasitc questions try again.



Sorry my narrative states that she is just talking about the body of Christ. Your arguments from authority are not valid in the realm of logic, and even IF she was talking about a dead body that makes nothing implausible either. Considering she didn't believe or understand the angels message it is perfectly plausible she still thought Christ was dead when she came to peter while still having hope that Christ might in fact be alive.


when I was arrested my wife cried but still hoped everything was going to be ok, in other words crying and hope are totally compatible. Its nice to know you've moved from making fallacious arguments and breaking the rules to now making incorrect assertions.


another baseless assertion keep rackin em up.


what do you mean where? when a child is lost the mother can still hope hes ok but still be concerned about where he is. furthermore you have made yet ANOTHER baseless assertion
this is completly untrue, not to mention that even if mary was talking about a dead body that is still plausible considering she did not believe or understand what the angels were telling her. It is entirely plausible she could've ran to peter thinking that the angels took the dead body.

once again you're backed to square 1

Keith&Co.

Why isn't satire a valid form of criticism?

Amaleq13

You pretending a new position is the one you've had all along is my fault? You are shameless.

Yes, your narrative implausibly has Mary upset and concerned about where Jesus' living body has been "laid".

Your own source says otherwise.

Except she was, just moments before, joyful upon hearing that Jesus was alive. Implausible. If you think that is a plausible plot development, you would starve to death as an author.

Matthew's joy says otherwise whether you are willing to accept it or not.

I mean there is no hope in John 20:2 or 20:13. There is really only hope in Matthew's joy after she hears that Jesus is alive.

Yep, still waiting for you to get a clue. And getting tired of your relentless evasions, false claims, and ignorant abuse of logic.

angelo

[QUOTE=badger3k;5437104]Because they are not talking about the same event - they are talking about several events that people lump together into one situation/attack - our language is to indeterminate to accurately reflect that. There were 19 hijackers involved in all four attacks, with a 20th who never made it that far. There were 4 planes hijacked, but only 2 were involved in the World Trade Center attack. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for all the attacks.

Now, if we had people reporting that there were 19 hijackers involved in the WTC attack, and that 4 planes were involved, and that only 2 planes were involved, or even that there were no planes, just missiles with holograms, then we would know that there are contradictions in their stories and would have to investigate further.

This argument doesn't fit well with the resurrection narratives, because they are all talking about the same event, equivalent to the WTC attack. If you wanted a good parallel, there would have to be multiple resurrections. There isn't. It's only one. 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. Or another explanation would be, most are not writing history but hearsay.
Remembering that the earliest writings are at least 30 years after the event.
There were no voice recorders or video in those days. All they had was memory, and we all know how fickle that can be.

rizdek

These two accounts are contradictory. Either they said something to some man or they did not say something to any man. The word "any" is a categorical term to mean...any as in not any. As in does any man get into heaven without believing in JC? Christians response...no, not any man. Not just some, not a few, not some particular man or men, but "any" which directly implies any of all the men. Even at that, Matt says they ran with fear and joy to bring word to the disciples. Running to bring word to disciples is different than not saying any thing to any man.

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