angelo

One problem that arises from scripture's statement of ''a great earthquake'' There's no evidence of such a quake within a 100 years of that time period. Even a local earthquake would surely rate a mention in the history of that time period in some history book of that particular period.
There is none. This as well as the other myriad of other non-verifiable facts make the whole story a sham at best or a complete fabrication at worst.

aChristian

We don't know how large the quake was and there are many things not recorded in histories written at the time. It should be no surprise that it is not mentioned elsewhere. However, you are overlooking the fact that the gospels are recorded history, by eyewitnesses no less.

sschlichter

the greek word seismos does not necessarily = great national tragedy. Acts 16:26 is the same use of the word. (ie.a shaking of the earth, just as easily localized)

Also, I was in greece about 8 years ago and there was an earthquake. Did you hear about that one?

~Steve

dr lazer blast

the time line was just to show the emotional reactions.
there you go using straw men again. Now you're just arguing just to argue, I showed the timeline of what I meant, thereby showing you that mark never stated joy.



Yes and, as long as you continue to contradict John's chronology, your effort will continue to fail to meet the challenge.[/QUOTE]

strawman. You are supposed to be criticizing my narrative. I am asserting that all the accounts are recording the same event. Jhon goes hand and hand with the other gospels. What you think about what john says is irrelevant.

Its sad that you can't make a point without using a logical fallacy, so until you respond to me in a VALID LOGICAL way your responses just go into the personal but invalid criticsm's drawer.


12:00

They left the tomb quickly.

12:01

They trembled with fear

12:02

They were amazed with great joy

12:03

They were afraid.

all of these reactions come from the angels, even amaleq agrees with me.

Post #271
but then why would he write this?
Contradictions aside, you can't seem to make a point without using a logical fallacy.



The joy and amazement comes from the angels.
Amaleq has provided EXTENSIVE evidence to support this assertion.
Post #271
Then once the angel explains what happens the women don't believe them so they take off in fear, i.e.
The women standing in the tomb and then they see 2 angels. They react with joy and amazement. The angels explain what happen with Christ, and the women don't believe the angels, so they run away in fear.



I challenge amaleq to criticize what I say without a single logical fallacy and also stay within the rules of the challenge. He has yet to do that for about 6 pages (ever since his argument fell apart) and until he does that I will continue to ask if anyone else has any VALID criticisms for my narrative.

It's so easy amaleq, no logical fallacies, and stay within the rules. Since we are talking about my narrative and the way I interpret it, yours or anyone else's personal feelings and views on scripture do not apply.

sschlichter

I am positing that the meeting in John 20:20-23 and Paul's meeting with Peter are the same meeting.

The second meeting in John 20:26 is Paul's meeting with the twelve.

It is not necessarily so, but here is why I beleive it to be so.

* the meeting specifically stated that all 12 were not present (minus thomas), so no other name for the group exists. Paul could have enumerated those present but there were other's besides the other nine that were present so he called it the meeting with Peter to distinguish it from the other meeting. It is not unprecedented as the visit to the tomb is that of Mary M's when other women were present, because she was the main character of that part of the story. (of course, Doug I imagine that you could also say that this is another contradiction.).

* Paul, if not desiring to break from his single paragraph of thought by enumerating all that were present, could very easily name the meeting as that with Peter, since Peter is implicitly the leader (Matt 16:19, Acts 2:14). Acts 2:14 is an excellent example. Peter is separated out from the eleven. Luke chose to say that Peter stood with the eleven when technically does that not mean that the 12 stood? Peter is the main character in this instance and the pentecost speech is attributed to him.

* You can also see each authors style when referring to the group. Luke liked to refer to the eleven (perhaps, even when it is possibly technicaly inaccurate (you earlier mentioned this possibility of the group being refered to this way as in Luke 24:33, and Acts 2:14)

* As we discussed earlier, the meeting with the twelve that Paul referred to is the second meeting that included Thomas. It also included Matthias who was present (as was a requirement to replace Judas) but was not yet commissioned by the others.

* it is also a possibility that the meeting was designated as with Peter because it grew importnat to point out that Peter, whom betrayed the most, needed the most clarification on his forgiveness. I think, to the early church, the appearance of Jesus to Peter was an important story of being forgiven. There is also precedent for this (John's extended meeting with Peter at Tiberius).

If you ask the people in this thread whom is present and what the topic is, you will get many answers - all of them could be accurate and from that persons perspective.

Some may say ameleq and DLB and highlight there on-going discussion of fear and joy, some, whom have since left will list the earlier conversations where the posters have since disappeared.

Some might include commentary by designating certain posters as fundies or the god-less.

Some(maybe a moderator) might be able to provide a list of all of those ever present including lurkers.

Noe of these accounts would be contradicting unless one specifically said Doug shaver was present and the other said he was specifically not present, ever.

None of the authors of what came to be the NT wrote with this exercise in mind. Each had a focus and purpose and included only those details that were relevant to that theme. However, there is an amazing lack of contradiction from people that wrote at different times for a different audience with a different theme. Don't you think? Even from a non-supernatural perspective, wouldn't you agree that we would not be talking about it 2000 years later if it was less coherent?

~Steve

Doug Shaver

I don't need anything. If you wish to meet Barker's challenge, you need to write a narrative in your own words with each incident assigned a time and place.

Doug Shaver

That does not meet Barker's criteria.

Doug Shaver

Two points:

1. Funny how only inerrantists see that lack of contradiction.

2. If all the accounts actually were consistent, there would be nothing amazing about it. I have worked as a journalist. There is nothing remarkable about four or five reporters covering the same event and producing five consistent stories about what happened, notwithstanding any amount of differences in details, emphases, intended readerships, interests, or what have you. And if there were any even apparent contradictions, somebody would be in trouble with his or her editor.

It makes no difference what they had in mind. If not a one of them made a single mistake, then meeting Barker's challenge would be a trivial exercise.

This is not even about the credibility of the stories. This is about the dogma of inerrancy. If apologists could just admit that maybe one or two of the writers got one or two details wrong, then we could go on to discuss whether we should believe the core of the story. But no, you have to insist that none of them made any mistakes at all. No way, no how. Because you think that the minute you concede even the possibility of error, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Amaleq13

There is nothing in the texts to support it and the idea is simply implausible. Sane humans don't go from being afraid yet joyful upon hearing amazing news to behaving as though that they never heard it during a short walk. Are you suggesting Mary was nuts?

No, you've offered nothing of the sort.

John gives a clear chronology that is contradicted by the narrative attempt at combining all the details. That is a failure to meet the challenge.

False. She is still upset at verse 11 and still concerned solely about the disposition of Jesus' corpse until she recognizes him at verse 16.

Until verse 16, she is described as nothing but sad and concerned about the location of Jesus' corpse. The entire depiction is incompatible with her being joyful upon hearing Jesus was alive. That can only come after John's 20:1-15 depiction.

You obviously were.

Your false characterization does not lead to that conclusion, no. However, Mary's emotions obviously do change in response to the angelic message which provided a wonderful alternative explanation for the empty tomb. She is no longer sad and concerned but becomes fearful, amazed, and joyful.

That is what the texts describe.

sschlichter

try reading 6 different historical books on WWII (for example) or even one battle and see if your statement is true and no details contradict.


I do not recall stating a position on inerrancy. Matter of fact, I have a hard time with a definition. (Does it include grammatical sloppiness, quotes of what people said - surely not). Nonetheless, I become more and more convinced of it every day that this thread continues without finding errors and contradictions in these 6 accounts. So, let's march out the contradictions so we can judge them. I Cor 15:5 is not one of them, IMO.

If you feel they are an attempt to record history in the same vein as a journalist, then you are right to expect them not to contradict. So, we can put the whole thing to bed if you just let me know the necessary contradictions.

Is Paul's not mentioning the others in the meeting with Cephas the most aggregious alleged contradiction, then? If so, then what of my explanation is implausible to you?

It is perfectly acceptable to me to say that they seem coherent but I do not beleive them, any of them. Dismiss them on the grounds that they contradict with what you know about the behavior of dead people. Why say they certainly contradict in their details, and never say how?

~Steve