GakuseiDon

It IS a different article. Which article then are you referring to when you said "I imagine Gakuseidon has his reasons for saying the article is not directed at skeptics"? It can't be the website that hosts Layman's article. So it must be Layman's article. In which case, we get back to how you get "What was the Christian methodology which sceptics had not yet been clever enough to work out?" from Layman's article?

I'm sure you could easily have made your points without those provocative little fudges. You don't seem to gain anything from them. Why bother to do it?

LOL! You're incorrugible! You just can't help yourself! Maybe it IS instinctual. This seems to be the only comment I've made close to what you say:

Price's article isn't about "Christian methodology vs skeptics methodology". He doesn't even mention "skeptics" at all, much less "Christian methodology". Why try to make it sound like he does? You do this kind of misrepresentation too often. Why take the trouble to do it this way?

As I said, it isn't any gross misrepresentation, just little fudges that don't seem to gain you anything. Why do it?

Sure, if I could understand it.

GakuseiDon

Why not phrase it that way from the beginning, then? Why put it as:

"What was the Christian methodology which sceptics had not yet been clever enough to work out?"

I'd describe it as a "troll-lite" approach. As I said, it is more annoying than anything else. You don't seem to gain anything from it. Just little twists that you seem to have to play.

Steven Carr

Here is Price's article, which you are seriously trying to convince people is not aimed at sceptics.

http://www.christiancadre.org/member...rmonizing.html

People may read it for themselves. One quote is 'Some though are skeptical of any attempts to "harmonize" the Gospels.'


It is linked to from http://www.christiancadre.org/Answers.htm

And, despite repeated requests, GasukeiDon cannot tell we 'critics' how to avoid making the mistakes Layman chides us for in his article - conflating two separate episodes in Jesus life into one, or taking one episode in Jesus life as two, simply because the Gospellers have put them apart chronologically.

judge

Hi Vinnie, have you ever read the sayings of Jesus in Aramaic?
In Aramaic many times there is poetry puns and wordplays which seem to suggest these linguistic devices may have served as a means for the audience to remember them!
Of course this is absent in greek and hence our English translations

GakuseiDon

And there you go again! Why not: "Here is Price's article", without the little fudge on the end? What does it add? That's what I honestly don't understand. It gains nothing towards your argument. Why do it?

That's the only time Price uses any part of the word "skeptic" in his article! Is it enough for you to say "What was the Christian methodology which sceptics had not yet been clever enough to work out?"

I'm not saying don't argue against the article, just that I wonder why you feel compelled to add these little twists to what people say? If it was just once, that may be understandable, but you do it often, here and on other boards. Why bother?

Since I've never said I could, I wonder why you've made those repeated requests. Again, notice that it's phrased in such a way to slightly twist things. Steve, I honestly don't know why you keep doing it.

Anyway, I'll give us all a break on this topic and let the real debate continue.

Vorkosigan

That claim is clearly incorrect, for it repeatedly refers to either common skeptic complaints or directly addresses them:

There are entire web sites devoted to exploiting the purported differences...

Some though are skeptical of any attempts to "harmonize" the Gospels...

(section, first sentence Some people are dismissive of attempts to harmonize apparent differences in the Gospels because they think it is merely a tool of Christians desperate to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy....

Too many critics take it for granted that similar sounding sayings or events must be variant accounts of one original utterance or happening

In fairness, although the article liberally mentions skeptics, I do not think the article is aimed at skeptics, because it is poorly argued and completely ignores the discoveries and views of modern scholars. It is actually aimed at believers, to comfort them with the delusion that you can resolve the very basic historical problems with the Gospels by imagining that one is looking at different points of view, and anyway, things were different back then. It relies heavily on one author, France, whose work is of little scholarly value, as far as I can see, and cites two other evangelical sources. Its function is to provide cognitive resources for believing doublethink. Price closes with just such a re-assurance for believers:

"These are just some things to keep in mind as you are reading your Gospels. Be cautious and approach purported "contradictions" as a cautious historian would. And when you are tempted to find a "sure" contradiction or responding to someone who has rashly done so, stop and consider the alternatives."

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

I did give an example of discrepant sources from outside the Bible - the two different descriptions of Hannibals routes.

Do historians even begin to harmonise those acconts in the same way that apologists try to harmonise events in the Bible? I think not.

To take another article linked to from the Christian Cadre (of which Bede , Layman and Metacrock are members)

It is linked to from http://www.christiancadre.org/Answers.htm and the article is http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/archev.php

This says about 'Jesus and Jericho - In the book of Mark, in telling the story of the healing of blind Bartimaeus, Jesus is stated to be heading out of Jericho. In Luke, however, it says He was headed into Jericho. A contradiction? No, not quite.

You see, archaeology has uncovered that Jericho was in at least four different locations as much as 1/4 of a mile apart in ancient times. The city, simply, would pick up and move around, which is not hardly far-fetched in ancient terms.'

Is this similar to how historians harmonise the two different routes Hannibal was supposed to have taken?



Layman's article is headed 'Some Principles for Dealing with Purported Contradictions in the Gospels'. So what are the principles which lets us know that the Sermon on the Mount/Plain are two different events, while Jesus only cleansed the Temple once? It is hard for me to work out the principles , using Price's article as my guide.

Vinnie

How does one harmonize this:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/easter1.html

Sven

No problem, these are all accounts of two different occasions:

[Jason Gastrich]
First, Jesus is disturbed, than he remembers he is the son of god and has to do this. He scoffs to divert from the fact that he changed his mind.

First, he is captured and the disciples run way. Then they come back and see that the soldiers finally comprehended that he is the son of god and escort him rather than hauling him off. Jesus sees that everything is alright and sends the disciples away because there is no need for them to stay any longer.

First, Jesus falls to the ground, looking for his contacts. Then the soldiers realize that they can not let the son of god search for his contacts alone and bend down to help him.

etc.

[/Jason Gastrich]

See, it's easy!

Vinnie

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy