crispy

You sure you didnt leave anything out? Seems like three persons are disagreeing with you :>

dr lazer blast

Amaleq13 disagrees with me but provides no evidence
Christ myth hasn't even criticized my narrative
who is the 3rd?

its not about the fact they disagree with me, its about why they disagree with me.

I gave them my narrative, it is up to them to criticize it. Personal dislike is not valid criticism. If you don't like it, give me a reason why, if its just because 'well that doesn't match up to me personally' that isn't a valid reason. A valid reason would be inconsistency and contradictions, leaving out details. I can't know everything 100%, so I am just taking what I have and coming up with a coherent story. It is your job to give VALID reasons about what is wrong with my story according to the rules of the challenge.

dr lazer blast

another example of someone that didn't read the narrative. I suggest you do so, since that is what is being criticized and has always been criticized in this thread. Start by criticizing the narrative, thanks

Amaleq13

You aren't using that term correctly, either. Nothing in my refutation of your attempted harmonization is accurately characterized as "semantics games" [sic].

This also makes no sense since my arguments that there are incompatibilities between the accounts presupposes they are telling the same story.

Again, I've provided the evidence of the texts, themselves. Why do you continue to make claims that are so transparently false?

On the point of the joyful reaction of Mary, we are dealing with the absence of detail from the accounts in your attempted harmonization. IOW, you failed from the outset to accomplish the goal your harmonization was supposed to achieve.

Again, Mary's joyful reaction is not from "my" narrative but from the stories you were supposed to harmonize using all the details given. The same ones you claim I haven't been using as evidence. You simply did not do this and, when this is done, the inconsistency is apparent.

It is in the details you failed to include in your attempted harmonization.

I've offered you nothing but that. :huh:

That is the conclusion your attempted harmonization is supposed to establish. Do you not understand that assuming it as part of your argument constitutes circular reasoning and/or begging the question?

You failed to include the joyful reaction and the inconsistency remains. Mary's joyful reaction to the angel's reassurance is inconsistent with Mary's concern about the location of Jesus' body in the fourth version. Your attempted harmonization failed to resolve this inconsistency. You simply ignored it.

You do so only by relying on a logical fallacy. It is logically fallacious to claim that the doubts of others requires or even suggests that Mary doubted as well. It simply does nothing of the sort.

Only in the version where she had not received any assurance from the angel. When the assurance and joyful reaction are included (as your harmonization attempt should have done), the inconsistency is apparent. Do you truly not understand that point or is ignoring it all you can think to do?

That is simply another blatantly untrue assertion. I have explicitly mentioned it and noted it changes nothing about the fact she also responded with joy.

I note also, however, that you appear to have retreated (without acknowledgment) from your earlier assertion that this was somehow not a reaction. :thumbs:

While this likely connects back to the original version (ie Mark) which only described fear, it is hardly remarkable that Mary's joy in learning from an angel that Jesus was not really dead would be accompanied by fear. What is described certainly qualifies as a traumatic experience. As I've already noted, however, this has no impact on the inconsistency between Mary's joyful reaction and the concerns described in John. It simply makes no sense to claim such a significant change in attitude absent some sort of head trauma.

I'm clearly not doing that but you would do well to take your own advice since that appears to be your approach.

A detective would note the same inconsistency that I have.

"You were scared but happy when you heard from the angel that Jesus was not dead? Is that right, ma'am?"

"Yes, sir."

"But then you went to Peter and expressed concern that you didn't know where the body had been laid? Why did you go back to thinking of Jesus as a dead body after being happy to hear he was not dead?"

"Um...I would like to speak to my lawyer, sir."

Again, why post such blatant falsehoods? I have done so here (direct reference rather than actual quote) and here. My arguments have been based soley upon what is stated in the texts.

To paraphrase Johnson, I provided the explanation but I cannot provide you an understanding of it. Mary's joyful reaction combined with the fact that she related what she was told to the disciples clearly indicates she accepted what the angel told her.

Another false statement. I never asserted that she responded only with joy. I initially focused only on her joy because that was all that was relevant to my argument. I subsequently acknowledged that she also responded with fear but indicated that it had no impact on my argument. Again, why post things so easily shown to be untrue?

This is the first time you've mentioned it as though it was relevant to your argument so this is yet another falsehood. I certainly accept the fear described in Mark's text. I also accept the addition of joy provided by Matthew's version.

I've noted several times that your narrative fails to incorporate all the details of the original stories and specifically identified what was missing and why it creates a problem for your efforts. See my Johnson paraphrase.

I would first note that this is an entirely new effort on your part to explain Mary's joyful reaction so your complaints that I haven't responded to it are more blatant falsehood. You're claiming now that Mary was initially joyful to see that Jesus' body was missing? That is inconsistent with both Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:2.

"And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:"

They were perplexed. No hint or suggestion that they immediately and joyfully assumed he was not actually dead.

"Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

She was happy Jesus' body was missing even though she doubted the explanation offered by the angel? She was joyful that someone had moved or stolen the body? :rolling:

martini

pardon the interruption but since it was laid out so kindly and carefully by Christmyth, i thought i would give it a go.

Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Lazarus, the other Mary (mother of James) and Salome all went to the tomb with spices so that they could anoint Jesus' body as well as some wine to drink and unleavened bread for repast very early on the first day of the week just after sunrise while it was still dark. (cf Matt28;1, Mark 16:1, Luke24:1, John20:1)

on their way to the tomb, Mary and the other women wondered "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb" then saw that the rock had been rolled away by an earthquake as they approached. (cf Matt28:2, John20:1, Mark16:4, Luke24:2)

during this earthquake, an angel, appearing as lightning with clothes white as snow, came down and sat upon it. the guards shook and became like dead men at this in epileptic fits. the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." (cf Matt 28:2-7)

they entered the tomb and found two angels and a man in white robes. (cf Luke24:4, Mark16:5). the man in robes said "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " the guards awaken and run off. (cf Mark16:5-7)

while they sat in the tomb wondering about this message and the earlier one, they had some wine to take their mind off these thoughts. suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' (cf Luke24:4-7)

how am i so far? i would like to make the point that i am only using the rules i have observed by Dr Blast.

Keith&Co.

I can see feeling both fear and joy at hearing that my dead son was not dead. Especially if it involved a high-powered being.

I mean, if the Commanding Officer showed up in my workspace and congratulated me for a job i'd done, i'd be joyful for the congrats, but fearful that the Captain knew my name.

Coming to the attention of God or a being that regularly gets fitness reports from God Almighty could easily set one's heart to triphammering, even while expelling the grief of recently losing the kid to Roman torture.

So, feeling joy, fear, joy+fear seems not to be mutually inconsistent, as far as i can judge.

Joy and doubt, though, that's a contradiction. An angel says my kid is alive, especially if that kid had been involved in miracles since before he was born, I'm going to have to accept it as a fact. And remember it. And spend the weekend telling people who offer their condolences that he's alive, allelujiah, so take the casserole back home, thanks ever so much.

Kharakov

Hey, did you know that if you ignore everything people say about something you say, you can say "hey, you guys didn't address what I said!" and think its true?

Why, you might ask? Simply because you ignore what they say about what you say.

Amaleq13

Exactly.

Mary's doubt in John, taking that account in isolation, is entirely reasonable since she was given no angelic explanation for the missing body.

The absence of a joyful response in Mark, when likewise taken in isolation from the other versions, suggests she doubted the angelic explanation. I don't consider this necessarily incredible though it is difficult to argue what constitutes a normal reaction to an angelic messenger.

What the "dr" doesn't seem to realize is that he needs to show doubt on Mary's part within the account that depicts her joyful reaction in order to remove it as a problem for any harmonization. That she apparently doubted or was unaware of the explanation in different versions is the problem and simply pointing to the problem obviously does not resolve it.

The problem only exists when one tries to harmonize all the accounts while including all the details. Then one must try to reconcile Mary's joyful reaction to the angelic explanation with her apparent doubt in Mark and her explicit concerns in John despite the fact that they are clearly incompatible.

sschlichter

I think you are all confusing the account with movie footage. Why do they all have to happen at the same time. Give her 5 minutes of concern, 5 minutes of doubt, a couple minutes to compose herself and then on to a joyful reaction. Why would each author need to include each detail?

Keith&Co.

THe problem is not that some details are not in each author's account. The problem is that details in one author's version of what's supposed to be the same event are incompatible with another author's version.

THey can't all be true, even if sorted into an acceptable chronography.