sschlichter

Matt 27 is outside of the scope of this discussion. wrong earthquake.

dr lazer blast

you just keep repeating the same things over and over. Mark states the last emotions they had was fear. The joy came from the fact that Jesus's body was not in the tomb, which is something mary saw with her own eyes. She is joyful at the fact that Jesus is not in the tomb.


you also forget the other links where I said that the MESSAGE of Jesus ressurecting was hard to believe and hard to understand which makes what you just said here irrelevent.



like I said the joy was from not seeing the body of Jesus which is completly independent of the message from the angels.



your criticisms continue to fail, the alternate was my narrative. I think I've said that like 3 times now and you just ignore it. You've found yoruself at square 1.

Amaleq13

Yes, because you've yet to even approach adequately addressing (let alone simply understanding) the issues I've raised.

And Matthew states that their departing emotions were fear and joy. Remember how you are supposed to include all details?

You mean the exact opposite of what John describes? She saw nothing but an empty tomb in that version and, rather than becoming oddly joyful, got very upset thinking that someone had stolen his dead body.

And only becomes concerned that someone stole his dead body after an angel tells her Jesus is alive? :rolling:

And a patently idiotic notion. :thumbs:

No, an alternate chronology for John 20 would only relate the order of events in John 20. You claimed that the one I offered was my "personal interpretation" so that means there must exist another that is based simply on a plain reading of the text. But you have failed to produce it. The obvious reason is because your complaint was utter bullshit and you have no alternate description of the clear chronology John 20 presents.

Your narrative is a failure whether you are capable/willing to admit it or not. :wave:

dr lazer blast

[QUOTE=Amaleq13;5436433]



true but you forgot fear at the end.



im sorry was this sarcastic comment supposed to be a criticsm? moreso was this comment supposed to contain a point of any sort because I sure am not seeing it.



thats where the mixture of disbelief and misunderstanding comes in, once again you have no point.


personal and baseless assertion both are not valid criticsms in the realm of logic or the rules. Try again.

once again the alternate is the narrative, you have done nothing to disprove that assertion just baseless assertion outside the realm of logic, The order of events in jhon 20 are described in the narrative which is what you're supposed to be criticizing. All you have to do is use logic and stay within the rules and you have yourself a valid critcism, its so easy yet you just can't seem to do it, I think its because you have no logical argument, in any case you have found yourself back at square 1.

Amaleq13

Your effort to arbitrarily differentiate Mark's fear as they departed from Matthew's fear and joy as they departed does not appear relevant to the contradiction.

Matthew states the joy followed the message.

You state the joy preceded the message.

Yes, the idea that Mary reacted with joy after simply seeing an empty tomb is both implausible and contrary to the text.

No, an alternate chronology for John 20 would only describe the order of events in John 20. That really shouldn't need to be explained.

Your narrative has Mary learning Jesus is alive before running to Peter but John states the opposite.

Yep, still waiting for you to correct your mistakes.

angelo

It is not described as a local tremor, it is described as a great earthquake The gospels all tell us that a group of women went to the tomb. Paul's whose writings are the very first christian literature fails to mention any tomb.
None of the four gospels agree on the sequence of events or who the women were or the number.
Mark has three women, Mathew two, Luke five or six and John one.
No gospel agrees with another on this minor detail.
Did these women see the risen Lord on that day?
Mark says no; Mathew says yes; Luke says no; John says yes.
Then there's the disagreements of who was the messenger who announced the resurrection.
It was a young a young man dressed in a white robe, says Mark.
Mathew says it was a supernatural angel who caused the guards to sleep and roll the stone from the entrance to the tomb.
It was two men in dazzling apparel [angels] says Luke.
John says it was two angels, but one morphed into Jesus himself.
The contradictions almost read like four separate stories.
None agree on who exactly was the first witness to the resurrection.
It was Cephas says Paul. Mark has no first witness.
Mathew says the first ones to see the resurrected Jesus were the women.
Luke says it was Cleopas and his band of travelers.
John says it was Mary Magdalene.
None agree where the disciples were when all this took place.
Some say Jerusalem, Galilee, on top of a mountain in Galilee, or nearby in Jerusalem's outskirts.
A fair sized novel could quite easely be written on the contradictions in the gospels alone never mind the rest of the N/T.

Doug Shaver

OK. Let's try this.
Witness A: "It was raining."
Witness B: " It was not raining."
Do you think it would be reasonable for me to believe, without knowing or understanding anything about Witness A or Witness B, that they were contradicting each other?

sschlichter

If your goal is to find contradictions as their stories increase in details, then yes - assume they are twins, talking at the exact same time, about the exact same time, exact same place, same purpose.

sschlichter

Here, I took some pieces of data from news articles about 9/11.

* 19 hijackers.

* the "20th hijacker" who was snagged.

* 2 planes involved in the attack.

* 4 planes hijacked.

* Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11.

Apparently, when reporting on an event, people have different perpectives and are talking about different aspects. All of the articles were accurate. How could these all be true?

badger3k

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. Contradictions. It doesn't mean that the cars were red with brown and green & black, it means that somebody isn't telling the truth.