thentian

No, that is in no way possible. Da Holy Scripture is Da Word of Gawd and therefore does not contain any ambiguities, omissions or shillyshallyings. If it says nobody, it means nobody! Had it been written by someone not inspired by Gawd, then what you say would have been possible, albeit highly unlikely.

ETA: Anyway, your task is to write a narrative containing everything the gospels actually say, not what you think they meant to say. And Mark actually says "nobody". Maybe he didn't really mean that, or maybe he ran out of ink, or maybe a roman killed him before he could continue his story, but "nobody" leaves no room for "somebody". Your narrative needs to contain: "...talked to nobody." (With the punctum at the end!)

Kharakov

Come on. Everyone knows that any perceived contradiction is due to missing information in God's word that only Christians can fill in with what they want, whoops, I meant guidance from the holy spirit.

ChristMyth

No, Dr. you do not use details, you use broad generalizations and scenarios made from your own imagination to fit the details you can't get to fit your narrative. Once again:

Details omitted:
1. When did Jesus meet the women? Was it just Mary M (John) or was it all of the women at the same time (as in Matt)?
2. When did the women arrive at the tomb? Was it still dark (as in John) or had the sun risen (as in Mark)?
3. When was the stone rolled away? According to your narrative, the women saw the angel roll away the stone, but, as I stated, if you read some of the texts, the stone is already rolled away when the women arrive. Luke is very specific about this.

and if you read Matt. the women saw the angel roll away the stone so there 28:was no reason to wonder about it:

4. You still have not explained about how someone can "tell no one" and "tell the disciples" at the same time. Your story of the women running into strangers just doesn't wash. This is pure speculation (not a fact as the game requires as you have pointed out.)

And your right, this is not Christmyth's challange, but I believe I have a right to see that you play by the rules if your going to play at all. Think of this like a chess game. I might not have made the game up, but I'm sure as hell not going to let you make any move you want to just because I didn't. So your excuse of "I can do what I want because you didn't make the rules" just doesn't wash.

Christmyth

Sheshbazzar

If you grasp a snake-in-the-grass by his tail, he will twist, turn, and thrash until his tail comes off in your hand, if he escapes, his tale will grow back, but shorter.

dr lazer blast

you have not provided any reason why. All you're doing is ad hominem attacks, attacking the bible and not bothering to answer the question.

They departed with fear and joy:True they encountered some men didn't say anything to them for they were afraid: True
Mary told Peter: true
neither of those conflict and that is how I an interpreting the scripture.

now since have not answered the question with a valid reason, I am going to ask you again, what do you have to refute this?

From the challenge
So it is well within the rules I an give additional explanations of the narrative.

Doug Shaver

Absent a presupposition of inerrancy, what makes it obvious?

dr lazer blast

I am allowed to explain my narrative.

plausible account of all the facts, and since I am allowed to explain my narrative and how I interpret the scripture, I haven't done anything against the rules.

You obviously haven't read my narrative, and if you continue to ignore the obvious details of what I wrote, this will be my last response to you as my narrative CLEARLY STATES it was not all of the women at the same time, it clearly states that.
keep in mind that they are SEPERATED, so Mary magdelene never saw Jesus when the other women did, and vice versa, which is clear in my narrative.

you aren't reading the scripture at all. They're coming AT the rising of the sun, so they're coming to the tomb at the same time the sun is rising.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as

7. at the same time that; while; when: as you look away.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=find

9. to discover

You obviously didn't read my post explaining this.

look what happens when I plug Matthew into each of the scriptures.

no contradiction.

no contradiction

you continue to forget that I am placing the scripture in the ORDER I want them to be placed.

In my narrative, that scripture comes before they see the stone rolled away by the angel. So once again, you're not criticizing my narrative, you're just looking at the scriptures the way you want to look at them.


This is not your interpretation of the scripture, its mine. How many times do I have to keep telling you that, criticize my narrative and how I am arranging it. You are not doing this, you're putting the scripture together according to your own logic, and that isn't what this challenge is about.


bolded is taken from Mark 16, this is how I am interpreting the scripture, not you.





I am allowed additional explanation to my narrative.

I am allowed additional explanation to my narrative.

it seems to me that i have 2 problems with your criticisms, 1 is total disregard for my narrative which clearly answers some of your questions, secondly, is your lack of criticism on my narrative. You're just criticising how the scriptures are written in the bible or how you put them together. The only criticism is how I (DLB) interprets the scripture into my narrative, anything else is irrelevant. So unless you point out something wrong with how I personally arranged the scripture according to my narrative. So here is how its going to be, forget the scriptures the way they are written in the bible, and concentrate on how I put them together, concentrate on this.
Concentrate on the bolded part. You must criticize my narrative as I put it, not as you put it Myth, but as I put it.

sschlichter

Does nobody contain a time constraint in it? If I claim that I told nobody about a surprise party, am I not excluding the time after the party?

I would claim that they told Mark, since he had to have known in order to write it down. Even the act of writing it down is a contradiction if it means no one ever.

So, what is the associated duration of time that they did not tell anyone? It is associated with the reason. The reason they told no one is because (gk: as, while, for) they were afraid. Luke 24:8 says they remembered what was said and then went to tell the disciples. Why did they need to remember when it just happened??? - because they were afraid prior to that and told no one during that time of fear. The telling of no one is associated with the gripping fear. the fear subsided, they composed themselves and remembered to tell run along and tell the disciples.

~Steve

sschlichter

a really good argument would be akin to someone that is strong enough to kill the snake instead of just grabbing it by the tail.

Why grab a snake by the tail instead of kill it, I wonder?

Amaleq13

At least you finally read the whole thing. You still don't appear to understand it but I'll take what I can get.

You don't have a point. You've offered exactly squat to argue that Guzik doesn't qualify as an expert. Have you even bothered to check Amazon for the number of commentaries the guy has written? I certainly don't agree with everything the guy writes but at least I'm honest enough to acknowledge his academic pedigree.

Who does qualify as an expert according to your "logic"? Anyone who agrees with your reading? And their names are....? <cue crickets>

As you have amply demonstrated, you either haven't read or don't understand my argument, so your assertion here is meaningless.

Yes, and it is just as incoherent and circular as everything else you've offered in an attempt to escape the obvious. It says nothing new and is nothing more than an example of begging the question. You assert she changed her mind from being joyful that Jesus was alive to assuming he must be dead (and refraining to even mention the message from the angels!) in the time it took her to run from the grave to Peter and conclude from nothing except that assertion that such a radical change is possible. That continues to be a patently absurd notion and a clear example of fallacious reasoning. If that is the best you can do, you are unlikely to convince any rational person that you have successfully met the challenge.