Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 04-26-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

I do have a life and I don't think I have to provide any such chronology in this type of setting. If the rest of them are this ridiculous then I have nothing to worry about.

Well then, how about a little monetary motivation with Dan Barker's Easter Challege ?

c'mon Buckshot, give us both barrells!

buckshot23 · 04-26-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Well then, how about a little monetary motivation with Dan Barker's Easter Challege ?

c'mon Buckshot, give us both barrells!

I like that. Both barrels. I'll pass for now. Life calls and finals approach.

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Well then, how about a little monetary motivation with Dan Barker's Easter Challege ?

c'mon Buckshot, give us both barrells!

Easter Chanllenge answered!!
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html
http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm

Since posting links without arguments is apparently a perfectly acceptable practice around here, I fail to see why I should be held to a higher standard.

Go read a book Kosh or sit back down!! Geeze!

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Easter Chanllenge answered!!
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html
http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm

Thanks for the laughs. Now...seriously...can you find a successful answer to the challenge?

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks for the laughs. Now...seriously...can you find a successful answer to the challenge?

Why do I get the sneeking suspicion, we'd get to page 24 before we flushed out the fact that you really have (2) meanings to the word successful in mind?

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I haven't said you have to respond. I'm just observing that you haven't been.

I'm sure I've missed a few. But I've endeavored to respond to every post directed at me. The fact that the answer is not what you wanted to hear, does not negate the fact that a response was given.

What part of jcsm's response to the easter challenge is lacking in your very humble opinion?

buckshot23 · 04-26-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think you're dancing, Buckshot. Let's look at the text:

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
[3] And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
[4] And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
[5] And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
[6] He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
[7] Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
[8] And they remembered his words,
[9] And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
[10] It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
[11] And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
(KJV)

It says they told "these things" to the apostles. It sounds like you're trying to equivocate by saying that we don't know what "these things" are but clearly they refer to the stuff in the preceding verses. The women go to the tomb. They find the stone rolled away with no body in it. Two angels appear and tell them Jesus is risen. They then go and tell the apostles "all these things." Do you really expect to be taken seriously with your suggestion that Luke just didn't bother to mention an appearance by Jesus to the women and that "all these things" includes that appearance?

The song remains the same. The entire issue is that YOU find it unreasonable that an appearance is excluded at this time. That is opinion. Furthermore the text does not state what was not spoken. You have no basis to state that Luke says the women did NOT say anything.

Quote:

I can preclude two or more mutually contradictory claims from being simultaneously true and that's what I'm doing with the resurrection narratives (even though the impossibility of "resurrections" should go without saying.)

No more laws of physics?

Quote:

You say that, and yet you decline to show us how these accounts can be reconciled even if there's money in it for you.

I have other more pressing concerns. Also this "contradiction" is patently ridiculous and frivolous.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

What part of jcsm's response to the easter challenge is lacking in your very humble opinion?

Well, the page you linked to only has four chronological points in it and I can't seem to find a way to access the rest but he's still playing fast and loose with the facts right from the start. Here's the only portion of his attempt that I can find on your linked page:

Quote:

1) Matthew 28:2 - There had been a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord had descended and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

2) Matthew 28:3 and 4 - The angel’s countenance was like lightning and his face like snow and the guards shook and fell to the ground as dead.

3) John 20:1-2 - Mary M. came to the tomb while it was still dark and saw the stone rolled away. She ran and came to Peter and one other disciple and told them the news.

4) Matthew 28:1 - As the day was dawning, Mary M. and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Matthew says that the earthquake happened and an angel dropped from the sky after Mary M and "the other Mary" got to the tomb. The jcsm page not only tries to say that it happened before they got there but also inserts another appearance by Mary M alone in between the earthquake/descending angel and the visit by Mary M and "the other woman." So the author of this piece is lying from the very start. I also think it's completely absurd and utterly unsupported by the text to try to reconcile all the initial descriptions of trips to the tomb by pretending that they were all different visits. They're all contradictory accounts of the same visit.

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well, the page you linked to only has four chronological points in it and I can't seem to find a way to access the rest but he's still playing fast and loose with the facts right from the start......

How do the (4) points listed not answer Mr. Barker's challenge as he himself stated it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Barker

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof.

Because of your criticism of me, I'm assuming your frustration is similar with Mr. Gastrich of jcsm.org, as he didn't give you a bullet by bullet response to Mr. Barker's questions that followed his challenge.

In what way did Mr. Gastrich not give Mr. Barker exactly what he asked for?

kais · 04-26-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7 #342

How do the (4) points listed not answer Mr. Barker's challenge as he himself stated it

Dan Barker: "The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.