dr lazer blast

Its obvious that the angels told them to tell SOMEONE (the disciples). So what mark MEANS by 'any man' is someone OTHER than who the angels told them to talk to (the disciples). So its consistent and not contradictory, do you have anything to refute this? do you have anything to refute how I am explaining the scripture?

dr lazer blast

To further prove my point regarding amaqee13, I have here what she said about Joy and doubt.

since she so experienced in traumatic situations

She should know that with Mary going through the following emotions IN ORDER, fear, joy, fear (in the form of doubt), that since joy is incompatible with doubt, and the doubt is the FINAL EMOTION, she can no longer have hope, so therefor her hope goes away, and she has doubt, no longer believing that Jesus is alive, and runs to Peter. So if we go by amaleq13's logic and 'professional' opinion, then Mary is fully capable of not believing Jesus is alive when she comes to Peter, since her joy (2nd emotion) that Jesus is alive, is not compatible with doubt (the final emotion she experiences).

thentian

No. The text already has the ladies disobeying the angel in another way: (Mark 16:6) "... do not fear...". The angel tells them to not fear and talk to Peter, but what they do is to fear and tell nobody.

The text itself contradicts you, or rather, you are contradicting it. The sentence "they ran and told Peter" is in itself a direct contradiction of "they told nobody". There is no need for me to "prove" this beyond pointing out that the two sentences are mutually incompatible. Just as it is incompatible with being truthful for you to say "I told nobody" if in fact you told your wife. It doesn't help if you later come along and say "of course I had to tell my wife, so when I said I had told nobody, I really meant nobody except my wife".

There was never a need for Mark to inform us that the ladies didn't speak to strangers in the street about this. Why should they? Were they in the habit of accosting people in the street? (Okay, maybe the Magdalene was, but only before she met Jesus! )

dr lazer blast

no what? no you don't have anything to refute? first your not answering the question, and now you're just ignoring the rules of the challenge completely by ignoring my narrative and just interpreting the scriputres according to your personal view points.



Women walk into the tomb, perplexed. Angels appear, women get scared. Angels say "do not fear go get the disciples" women don't fear (obeying the angels) get joyful cuz they have hope that Jesus is alive, then women run off see some men, get scared because they don't want to alert anyone before they bring word to the disciples.



You continue to ignore the rules of the challenge, this is not about your interpretation of the scripture, this is my interpretation of the scripture, since I am the one giving the narrative. You must find fault in the way I interpret the scripture i.e. the narrative, not the scripture itself.

Amaleq13

The fact that you continue to misuse the term and falsely characterize my position is just depressing. The fact that you didn't even bother to read your own reference is simply appalling.

Imagine that! Relying on experts to support a claim about their area of expertise. Do you even realize how idiotic it is to deny the legitimacy of such an endeavor?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

You didn't even read your own goddamn source, kid!! Just one line after the list you cut&pasted we have the following:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert." (emphasis mine)

"Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment." (emphasis mine)

You want to argue that a Christian pastor who has several published commentaries does not qualify? Be my guest.

Here's some more you clearly failed to read:

"As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts." (emphasis mine)

"In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert." (emphasis mine)

I tried to warn you but, once again, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend. Save your hugs and actually do some research for a change. :banghead:

Until then, Mary continues to be referring to a dead body in John 20:2 and this continues to be incompatible with her understanding of angel's reassurance that Jesus was alive. :wave:

dr lazer blast

From the same article

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.


Just to further prove my point.

Like I said, you have no case, even the article you're trying to refute me with is telling you that you don't even have a good argument.

According to your logic, its still compatible with my narrative. I already posted a response in post #222 of this thread.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=222

ChristMyth

I have critiqued your narrative. The best you could come up with, as far as I can tell, not only leaves out details of the texts, but completely makes stuff up just to make it fit. You are not playing by the rules of the game and since you refuse to play by the rules, which clearly state you must use every biblical detail, you lose automatically. When you decide to start playing by the rules, let me know and we might have something to talk about.

Christmyth

dr lazer blast

I am going by the rules, I created a coherent narrative without leaving out details. What details are left out myth? there aren't any. I did not leave out a single detail, yet you baselessly assert I did, and have provided no evidence. Doesn't surprise me.
why am I making up stuff by the way? what evidence do you have I am making up stuff? seems to me like you have no argument.

This is not "Myths easter challenge"
Rules I am going by, which are not Myths rules.

thentian

This (your narrative):

is in direct contradiction to (Mark 16:8) "...told nobody." Your narrative needs to contain all the facts from all the gospels, including this piece from Mark that says she talked to nobody. But you write that she talked to somebody, namely Peter!

It doesn't matter if there were some, or a thousand, or a million people she refrained from telling it to, before talking to Peter. As long as she told Peter, she told somebody! This is more than just semantics. Not-A and A cannot simultaneously be true. That would be a contradiction. It is not "my interpretation" that Mark 16:8 says "told nobody", or that nobody means precisely nobody! However you "interpret" it, nobody cannot include somebody! So in order to include Mark, you must cut from your narrative that she talked to Peter. Otherwise she has not talked to nobody, and you have failed.

nobody[1,pronoun]nobody[2,noun]

Main Entry: 1no·body
Pronunciation: \ˈnō-bə-dē, -ˌbä-dē\
Function: pronoun
Date: 14th century
: no person : not anybody

dr lazer blast

Its entirely possible and in no way IMPOSSIBLE that scripture could've meant nobody as in no one but the disciples, and mary only told peter and the other girls only told the disciples, so it makes coherent and perfect sense, what valid reasons do you have to refute this?