Amaleq13

My mistake, unapologetically hopeless. :rolling:

You need "back up" for the notion that Mary would be happy to hear an angel tell her that Jesus wasn't dead? I don't believe you. No one could actually be that obtuse.

Sure you did. When you tried to establish doubt on Mary's part by referring to passages describing doubt by the disciples. Here

Who do you think you're kidding?

"my narrative states the joy preceeded the method [sic] {message}"

"And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy..."(Mt 28:5-8, KJV, emphasis mine)

Matthew states the message preceded the joy.

Your narrative contradicts Matthew and, thus, fails the challenge.

I didn't think you understood. Your narrative contradicts the clear chronology of John 20, whether you understand that or not, and fails the challenge.

If this thread has established anything it is that you are incapable of recognizing, let alone coherently responding to, valid criticisms, logic, or the rules to the challenge.

Amaleq13

Then stop ignoring my response and improve your question accordingly.

sschlichter

yet, no one will tell me where it is containing a necessary contradiction

this is not a contradiction. it is an omission of a detail that 3 gospel authors thought unimportant for their purposes and audience.

at least these women and possibly more. this is not a contradiction. You have stated that this omission is important. please state why? What was important that the names of each of the women present should have been enumerated?

same word used in Acts 16:26. there is no reason this need be interpretted as a national earthquake. A local shaking of the earth will suffice.

why? again, tell me what makes this important to the theme of each author.

a contradiction would be present if the others said there was not an angel of the Lord present.

apparently, if you were their lawyer.

you are providing evidence only of what details you feel are important. These are not contradictions. One gospel that says the ascension was in Bethany and the others saying he ascended is not a contradiction unless they say it was not in Bethany or otherwise infer that it is impossible they were in Bethany.

Please point out only the necessary contradictions in this chronological arrangement of the 4 gospels, http://www.taskautomationpartners.co...nascension.htm
not those things that you would have included, or things that confuse you in not being included. Only those that contradict.


if you need Acts 1 and 1 cor 15, they are included in this post.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=429

aChristian

The question is simple and straightforward. Could Mary's emotions have possibly changed at all or not?

Amaleq13

No, as I've already pointed out, it is vague and misses the point.

Stephen T-B

"Please point out only the necessary contradictions in this chronological arrangement of the 4 gospels... " (sschlichter)
If both you and the author of the Gospel Harmony piece can ignore:
Where was the angel - sitting on the stone, sitting inside the tomb, not there at all, or was there one angel or were there two?
Were there guards "lying as dead"?
Was there an earthquake?
Who went to the tomb?
Who was the first to see Jesus - and was Jesus seen in the flesh, so that he could be touched, or was he seen in the spirit and couldn't be?
Were the disciples told to meet Jesus at Galilee?
Did Peter ignore that request and visit the tomb?
Did he go on his own or with John?
Did Mary see someone she thought was the gardener?
Did Mary see or did she not see an angel at the tomb?
- If these issues can be dismissed as mere details, then how would you rate these differences:
Witness A: "It was raining."
Witness B: "It was dry."
Witness C: "It was foggy"
Witnes D: "It was raining and foggy."

Witness A: "I saw a man with gun."
Witness B: "I saw two men. One had a bulge in his coat which might have been a gun."
Witness C:"There were three men."
Witness D: "There was one man with a sword."

Witness A: "The man ran up to the old lady, pointed the gun at her head and fired, killing her on the spot."
Witness B: "The two men stepped out in front of her; one pulled out a gun and shot her throught the heart. An ambulance came and she died later in hospital."
Witness C: "The three men attacked her, and one cut her throat and she bled to death.
Witness D: "The man I saw ran her through with his sword."

Witness A:"He snatched her bag, and escaped on a motor bike."
Witness B: "One took the purse from her bag, threw the bag away and they both escaped in a car."
Witness C: "The three men went through her clothing, found her purse and ran away."
Witness D: "He snatched her bag and escaped on a bicycle."

Basic facts: A woman was attacked, robbed and killed - but what actually happened?

The resurrection: Christ was crucified, his body was placed in a sepulchre, and sometime on Sunday night following his execution on the Friday he came back to life and was subsequently seen by his followers before disappearing up into heaven.
This is what Christians believe - but WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
And why, in presenting that basic story, are so many competing and contradictory details presented in the NT?

angelo

The majority of scholars hold that Mark is the first of the gospels to be written, he makes no mention of any earthquake.
Mathew , Luke and John or whoever were the real authors placed their own version to a legend that was already around 40 years after the events supposedly described happened.
Try taking such nonsense to a court of law with that outline of the story and nothing else.
Any judge in his right mind would have to throwout that nonsense otherwise he would be made a laughing stock.

dr lazer blast

ok so your personal views on the narrative don't count as valid criticism.



incorrect, i said the message of Jesus Christ ressurecting was difficult to believe. Once again you fail.



You forgot about Mark. Once again you fail.

another baseless assertion to add to your list.

your ad hom logical fallacies aside you have once again found yourself at square 1

Deus Ex

It sure is.

Keith&Co.

Where, exactly, did you learn what an ad hominem fallacy was? Seriously? High school? College? Or Wiki?

It's only an ad hominem fallacy if it is a personal assault, off topic.
Your presented arguments are the topic.
Responses to your arguments, criticizing the logic of your arguments, or your ability to craft a response to the challenge IAW the rules of the challenge, are on topic. Even if the responses have other logical flaws in them, you can't just call everything an ad hominem and claim victory.
It would be a fallacy.