Amaleq13

I suffer for thee, my child. :angel:

It causes me some physical pain in the frontal lobe but my extensive work with high school students has helped inoculate me somewhat.

Thanks for the kudos.

dr lazer blast

2 and 3 are arguments from authority,
Also, the things I have read on traumatic experiences supports my assertion, the things I have personally experienced have had doubt and joy synonmous.

See I can baselessly assert just as well as you can.





That doesn't matter, me and the pastor have different opinions, since niether of us knew what happened, his assertion is just as good as mine, unless you claim otherwise?



wrong, as you forget about mark.

Lets plug that in sha'll we?


Looking at Mark, we still have them afraid after they experienced the fear and joy.
Lets look at it a little closer.

Matthew
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre

Mark
8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre

hmmm, seems to be the same thing, both authors state the women fled from the tomb.

Matthew
with fear and great joy

Mark
for they trembled and were amazed

Once again the same thing, trembling can be equated with fear, and amazement can be equated with joy.

It seems like Matthew stops there, but Mark seems to add something that the author from Matthew didn't find important, the extra thing that Mark says is

So they departed with fear and joy, after the departure, they encountered men and did not want to say anything for they were AFRAID, so it seems that fear overcame the 'joy' which would explain Mary doubting the story and running to peter.

The rest of the post I skipped because as much as I try my hardest to make the posts between you an I a minimum length, you seem to some how extend them.

temporalillusion

Yes the task is theirs in this case, I didn't say otherwise. Personally I think it's been shown already but it's up to you to decide if you are being intellectually honest or not.

They weren't intended to, as you say I was just sharing my experience. And this is just one small area of the whole Bible.

Sorry, I was just trying to address the question you kept repeating over and over, so I assumed you would consider that as on topic since you were asking it.

ChristMyth

You forgot Joanna from Luke 24:10.


OK, I'll buy this one

Now you've run into some problems. First, if you read Mark, Luke, and John very closely, you will notice that the stone is already rolled away before the women arrive at the tomb. This is why they are shocked by the fact that the body of Christ is missing. If it was as you state here, the women would not have thought that someone had stolen the body of Jesus (as they do in John) because the angel would have already told them where the body was. Also, the guards do not die or else who tells the chief priests the story of the risen Christ.

Matthew never says that the women go into the tomb. They are met outside the tomb and told of the resurrection.

I see that your using the "if there was two, there must have been one" argument. While there are problems with this type of argument, I'll go with it anyway.

Ok, let's look at the logic of this statement from Mary's point of view.

1. Mary with the other women go to the tomb and find it empty.
2. Get message from two angels that Jesus has risen. She disbelieves the angels who have just come down from heaven and rolled away the stone.
3. Separates from the other women and runs from the tomb to tell Peter that they have taken Jesus and "do not know where they have put him!" even though the angel has just told her that he has risen.
4. Runs back with Peter (and the other disciple) to see that Jesus is gone.
5. Cries.
6. Is visited by two more angels and Jesus (who she mistakes for the gardener?) and has a conversation.
7. Runs back to the disciples and proclaims Jesus is risen.

Now remember, all this is taking place even though the Gospel of Mark clearly states in v 8 that the women were afraid and "told no one"

The only thing I can think is that before Mary became a follower of Christ, she was the winner of the Olympic Gold medal in track. By God she must have been in good shape!

Amaleq13

Yes, but they are of the logical sort rather than fallacious. My professional experience makes me more of an authority on the subject than you. No one could be stupid enough to deny such an obvious truism. Likewise, I assume you are a greater authority than I with regard to whatever it is you do for a living. If you base a claim on your professional knowledge, that is an entirely legitimate appeal to authority.

Logic 101, amigo.

This is where you were supposed to provide specific support for your assertion rather than make another patently false claim. I suspect, instead, your next step would be the additional logical fallacy of shifting the burden because you have no support and haven't a clue where to find some. In fact, I would be willing to bet you have never read a single professional text on traumatic experiences in your entire life.

This is a complete waste of my time. You don't have anything to support your ridiculous assertion and it isn't even all that relevant anyway. Focus on finding support for your reading of John 20:2. I'm not going to deal with any more of this nonsense. Since you want shorter posts, that should work out just fine.

How many scholarly commentaries have you written?

No, your opinion clearly isn't anywhere near the same league. Got anybody whose is?

<cue crickets>

As you keep reminding everybody, we are talking about your narrative. :banghead:

In your narrative, the women get the information about Jesus being alive (hope according to you) before Mary goes to Peter and expresses concern about the location of his dead body (doubt according to you). See? First hope, then doubt. Your analogy had it backwards.

Not only did you forget your own repeated admonition but you appear to have completely lost track of the argument. Or, perhaps, you've never really understood it at all. Even money on that one.

If you didn't make so many blatantly false claims and consistently screw up every argument I've presented in your responses, far less space would have been needed.

But we certainly agree that less is better. As I've already indicated, focus every ounce of your abilities on obtaining support for your reading of John 20:2. If, contrary to both myself and Pastor Guzik, Mary was concerned about where the living body of Jesus had been laid, then there is no incompatibility with her joyful reaction to angel's message. Good luck. :thumbs:

angelo

That angel has a striking resemblance to Captain James Cook the discoverer of Australia. Sorry to go off topic. But I feel this thread needs a little humor.

dr lazer blast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So once again, this is about my narrative, and my narrative states that Mary was talking about the LIVE body of Christ, now what do you have to refute that?
(I have a feeling that you're going to pull the 'fed up' card about now)
why do you just continue to ignore what I've presented you. My narrative states that mary magdelene had fear in the form of doubt when she went to peter.


Here i what they experienced according to my narrative. Fear (maybe from the angles cuz according to your logic angels are scary,) Joy, (in the form of hope) but then fear in the form of DOUBT.

This is supported in the texts of Matthew and Mark

Here is me putting the verses TOGETHER in a coherent story.
The bolded is taken from Mark, so IN ORDER of emotions. departing with Fear, Great joy, finding men along the way to the disciples and not saying anything out of FEAR.

so actually I did not have it backwards, because mark specifically states that the last emotion they felt was FEAR.

Like I said, Joy and Fear. You had it wrong, because you didn't realize I was talking about Mark.

dr lazer blast

your right I did! great catch, ok joanna was there, but she went with Mary mother of james and salome.




Regarding the stone, it's a common misconception that people have, but when you look closely at the scripture regarding the rock you will find there is no indication of the stone before the women arrive at the tomb.

Luke 24:4
Jhon 20:1
Mark 16:4

look what happens when I plug Matthew into each of the scriptures.

Luke 24:4
no contradiction.

Mark 16:4
no contradiction.

Jhon 20:1
no contradiction

another common misconception was that the angel sat on the rock while telling them that. We must take into account the other 3 gospels, which state there were 2 angels in the tomb, and one of the angels was speaking along the same lines as the one in matthew. It is entierly possible that the angel got off the rock and went into the tomb, and also entirely possible that an extra angel was sent to move the rock and kill the guards and left, however since it is my job to provide a coherent narrative with the information at hand I must provide a reasonable, sensible, explanation, which would be the angel getting off the rock, and walking into the tomb.

The women ran into the tomb, see there is no body and look around to see what is going on, they see 2 angels, and on goes the narrative.

Regarding the guards, 2 of the guards died, and the rest ran away in fear.

Argument from silence. Just because Matthew never says the women go in the tomb doesn't mean anything. We must take into account the other 3 authors as well.


'Any man' that was not part of the disciples or apostles. The angels told them to go get the disciples, so they were scared to talk to anyone that wasn't part of their 'group' (disciples and apostels) probably cuz they were scared that one of the high priests would find out and try to stop the women from reaching the disciples, and they didn't understand the ressurection and doubted parts of the angels story.

sschlichter

I am not sure I understand the point of this exercise. What if we used the actual gospels narratives instead.

Would something like this help? (sorry, too big to post had to use a link).

Gospel Harmony

There are no comments, apologies, or any text taken out of order (intentionally, anyway). The long ending of mark is included (just for fun)

Please beat the hell out of it. If it does not fit, then I want to know. However, I am only interested in real contradictions, not supposed ones because you think all the authors should have done a head count of women before telling their story or because you do not believe that doubt cannot be experienced before, after, or during joy. (especially, when disbeleif is a major theme in one of the books)

~Steve

Amaleq13

If you actually understood the article you linked (or my explanation of the reference), you would recognize that you were wrong in identifying my reference to Guzik as a fallacious argument from authority. You would also understand that you need to show that his reading might be wrong by presenting the opposing views of someone with a similar expertise.

You want to claim the text says something other than what it appears to say? You need the support of a scholar. Your uninformed opinion is rather obviously insufficient to the task.

It is contrary to what the text states and you are supposed to incorporate all the details from the texts.

Surely you don't imagine you are free to change any details you wish without some sort of scholarly support?

And fall for the strategy of relentless obtusity? You wish.

I included that in my post and in the portion you just quoted ("doubt according to you"). :banghead: Sweet mother of pearl, man! Pay attention!!

Your analogy was referring to Mark instead of your narrative even though you have repeatedly told everyone here that this is about your narrative?

The fact remains that your analogy had it backwards from your narrative.