dr lazer blast

do you realize that what you're asking me has nothing to do with the challenge at all? I am not going to sit here and answer every single bible 'contradiction' you find at www.biblecontradictions.com because if I answer one, then you'll just keep on coming with more and more and more.

Did you notice how I stopped going off on a tangent with you and the others?, I realize I am going off on one now, so unless you got some criticisms about the narrative and the topic at hand I suggest 2 things. Wait for this discussion to be over, or make a new thread.

*hugs Kharhov*

sschlichter

John 19:30 and Luke 23:46

When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, "It is completed!" Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And after
he said this he breathed his last.


How about this:

When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, "It is completed!" Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And after he said this he bowed his head he breathed his last and gave up his spirit.

~Steve

Amaleq13

I think you meant "joy" rather than "fear" but this is simply false whichever word you choose as anyone willing to review the thread can see. Otherwise, you would be able to quote the post in which I make this assertion instead of simply repeating the false statement. But you can't because it never happened. Again, why bother making demonstrably false claims like this? They just make you look bad.

You should have read my entire post before starting to reply because you would have seen the links. Then you should have edited yourself to avoid looking foolish.

Is that your idea of an apology for making a false accusation?

No, your attempt clearly fell short of the requirements (ie including all details) and I simply pointed out one specific example.

That isn't a fact. It is a another blatant falsehood. My argument has been based on what you ignored in your attempted harmonization. You confirm that fact in the rest of the sentence:

Exactly. Instead of doing as you were asked, you ignored details from one account. You may be making progress but I'm not going to hold my breath just yet.

Just to be clear, in order to meet the challenge, you must include all the details from all four accounts. As you admit here, you have yet to do so.

First, I acknowledged the fear and explained why I did not mention it initially. Her joy is all that is relevant to my argument and including her fear changes nothing. Your focus upon this irrelevancy is an obvious red herring. Second, that I included something from one of the accounts that you ignored in no way, shape, or form involves me ignoring anything.

You really don't understand my argument, do you? It requires that the joyful (and fearful ) reaction in Matthew be combined with Mary's concerns in John. When they are combined (as your effort failed to do), the inconsistency is clear. I'm doing the exact opposite of what you claim. That you have failed this badly in comprehending it suggests you either have not bothered to actually read what I've written or you have not bothered to think about it enough to obtain a genuine understanding of it. This is a very bad sign, amigo. It is difficult to see how one could honestly go so horribly wrong.

That's too bad since it was the most rational move you've made so far.

Not true and, before you start pontificating on the subject, keep in mind I'm more than a little familiar with traumatic experiences. By profession and for nearly 20 years.

Not analogous. If I heard my mother won the lottery, I would not react joyfully if I doubted it. My reaction would correspond to my doubt and be quite a bit more subdued than joyful. Skeptical? Suspicious? Yes. Joyful? No. That simply makes no sense.

That you clearly do not understand my criticism does not make it poorly thought out. It just means you have not given it sufficient thought. Others here have had no problem accurately grasping it so the trouble isn't on my end.

No, I focused only on her joy. There is a significant difference between the two and you would do well to recognize this.

It has never been an error. That she also reacted with fear has never been relevant to my point and has no impact on my argument. You certainly haven't shown otherwise. Including it serves no useful purpose. Focusing upon it serves only as a distraction from the point.

You need to be more careful with your language. I continued to focus on her joyful reaction because it is the crux of the inconsistency. I have never asserted that she "only" reacted with joy. I would appreciate it if you would stop repeating this blatant falsehood.

Then quit complaining when I point to a giant wrinkle and just get your iron out, amigo.

Joy over a missing body makes no sense unless they thought he was alive. Try again.

What's to understand?

"Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words," (Lk 24:7-8, KJV)

If she assumed he was resurrected, she assumed he was alive and not just a "body".

See above. It clearly needs more ironing.

Kharakov

If I say "I went to the market then I went to burger king" it does not mean the same thing as "I went to the market, then I went to the park and laid in the sun for a bit, then I went to burger king".

Both of these statements are recorded as Jesus' last words, after he uttered them, he 'gave up the ghost' (in other words, he was toast).

dr lazer blast

I am going to dismiss majority of your post as just bickering between you and I, because these responses are getting long. I am not 'retreating' on any of those 'points' (if you want to call them that) nor am I 'ignoring' them, if you feel liek you've been wrong then after the we finish our discussion about the narrative, we can address each point I dismissed in this post, I just feel that someone here needs to be the adult and just cut down to the important points(without the extensive use of emoticons....)


nice argument from authority. Atheos tried the same thing.




Obviously something if Jesus had to open up all of their understanding



a live body and a dead body is still a body.

Just a repost in case you didn't see it.

Id also like to point out, that Amleq13's point desperetly depends on claiming joy and fear are incompatible with doubt, which is ridiculous. Fear is almost synomous with doubt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear

4. To suspect; to doubt. [Obs.]


http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/fear
Main Entry: fear
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: affright, agitation, alarm, anxiety, apprehend, apprehension, awe, blench, concern, consternation, cower, cringe, dismay, distrust, doubt, dread, eschew, flinch, fright, horror, panic, phobia, quail, recoil, reverence, shy, suspect, suspicion, terror, trepidation, uneasiness, venerate, wince

personally I think it is readily obvious that fear and doubt are synomous, but to those that might think other wise, the dictionary and the thesaurs seem to agree with me.


Quote:
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

so its easily possible she had joy first, in the form of hope maybe, or because the angels appeared to them, then fear, maybe because the body of Jesus was gone and she didn't know where he was, or fear because they didn't understand the whole ressurection thing, and thus began to doubt.

entierly possible

To further prove my point, they were confused BEFORE they even saw the angels.

Quote:
there were also AFRAID.

so if they could still be afraid AFTER the angels talked to them, what is stopping them from still being PERPLEXED as well?

Joy in the form of hope or that they had seen the angels, and fear because they didn't know where Jesus was, or fear beacuse they didn't want to alert any of the high preists to what happened until after they figured it out amongsts themselves (the discipels and apostles) and doubt, because they didn't understand what was going on, or doubt because the story of Jesus was hard to accept.

Doug Shaver

Why would she have feared that? She heard it from an angel, didn't she? She believed angels were messengers from God, didn't she?

I wouldn't have believed it myself, but then I'm a skeptic. Was Mary a skeptic?

dr lazer blast

2 responses to your assertion.

1. and fear because they didn't know where Jesus was, or fear beacuse they didn't want to alert any of the high preists to what happened until after they figured it out amongsts themselves (the discipels and apostles)
so there are other reasons for her to fear as well, not to mention that it is neither contradictory or inconsistent of the narrative that she could fear the angels not telling the truth, which brings me to my 2nd point, also your point seems to be stemming from personal dislike, which is not a valid criticism (its a fallacy I just forget which one), I guess a better explanation would be, fear for the possibility of it not being true.

The fallacy is called The Anecdotal Fallacy

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvofal.html

2. just because they were angels doesn't mean that it is impossible to doubt that Jesus in fact had ressurected.

As you can see from the scripture, it is possible to doubt that Jesus ressurected even seeing him with your own eyes.

ChristMyth

The reason that I did not critique your version of the events is because, like others have stated, you have left some major points of the event out. I was afraid that you might have not read the text correctly, so I posted every text in question with every fact within those texts for your use.

Now, please, to settle this once and for all, I ask that you restate your narrative using the facts that I have given. Please use every fact available and do not read into the text something that isn't there.

One again, I await your response.

Christmyth

p.s. also note, my name is all one word, not two. Thank you.

ChristMyth

Just another reason that one should refrain from drinking large amounts of wine.

Christmyth

sschlichter

If I was with you and I told my wife where we were, I might say:

"we went out"
"we went out to eat"
"we went to burger king"
"we went to the market, and then to eat at a fast food restaurant"
"we went to the park, then burger king"
"we took a nap and ate"
"we went for a drive, a nap, and lunch"
(or about 1000 others)

Think about how many combinations there are and all of them true. What are the odds that the details that both of us thought were important (based on why someone is asking us) are the same?

Each author had a specific purpose and audience and shared details that were important to that end.

~Steve