Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 07-09-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Here, I took some pieces of data from news articles about 9/11.

* 19 hijackers.

* the "20th hijacker" who was snagged.

* 2 planes involved in the attack.

* 4 planes hijacked.

* Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11.

Apparently, when reporting on an event, people have different perpectives and are talking about different aspects. All of the articles were accurate. How could these all be true?

Because they are not talking about the same event - they are talking about several events that people lump together into one situation/attack - our language is to indeterminate to accurately reflect that. There were 19 hijackers involved in all four attacks, with a 20th who never made it that far. There were 4 planes hijacked, but only 2 were involved in the World Trade Center attack. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for all the attacks.

Now, if we had people reporting that there were 19 hijackers involved in the WTC attack, and that 4 planes were involved, and that only 2 planes were involved, or even that there were no planes, just missiles with holograms, then we would know that there are contradictions in their stories and would have to investigate further.

This argument doesn't fit well with the resurrection narratives, because they are all talking about the same event, equivalent to the WTC attack. If you wanted a good parallel, there would have to be multiple resurrections. There isn't. It's only one. As has been stated before, it's like an auto accident where one says the cars are red and green, another says they were brown and black. Contradictions. It doesn't mean that the cars were red with brown and green & black, it means that somebody isn't telling the truth.

you sound like an apologist. Now, pretend it is 2000 years later and you are not there to expalin.

badger3k · 07-09-2008, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

As we don't know who wrote the gospel nor when, it's a wee bit difficult to answer such a question.

you may not.

Well, you may believe you know, but the best we have are guesses.

Quote:

But are you saying that the record of the events of that day were shaped towards the audience, vice recording history for the purpose of posterity?

these are not contradictions. There is an agenda on the part of all the gospel authors. John clearly states his agenda:

(John 19:35) And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe.

I did not say they were objective reporters. They are not objective at all. They firmly beleived what they wrote to the point of death. This has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Facts are presented in such a way to maek a point or sway someone. This is different from not being facts. If you have 1 million facts, then you choose the ones that will best tell your story and support your purpose. You did not tell me what you had for lunch today. not because it was not true, but because it did not support your agenda.[/QUOTE]

No, we leave out such things as lunch because they are not relevant to the discussion. With the four gospels, what we have are some leaving out the lunch, and some saying they ate at Dennys, while others say they went to Popeyes, but all saying they went to the same place. Twisting "facts" so that they support your agenda - in other words, making stuff up as the writers did, does not make history. It makes a story that is intended to convey a message. It cannot be used as history. It wasn't until later, when writing became more universal and people started being concerned with historical accuracy that such a thing developed. Earlier writers (and the earlier oral traditions) were more concerned with the message, the details...not so much. They weren't important, and changed to fit the audience. We have many examples from history and anthropology that supports this. The point is, the anonymous writers of the gospels were not reporters at all, they were evangalists trying to spread their message, and to that end, they shifted things to get their point across. They were not intended to be read as history (for the most part - Luke seems to have been written as a pseudo-history similar to the others of that time period).

The idea that the bible was meant as history, and further, that it was meant to be taken literally, are later additions to the canon.

badger3k · 07-09-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Because they are not talking about the same event - they are talking about several events that people lump together into one situation/attack - our language is to indeterminate to accurately reflect that. There were 19 hijackers involved in all four attacks, with a 20th who never made it that far. There were 4 planes hijacked, but only 2 were involved in the World Trade Center attack. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for all the attacks.

Now, if we had people reporting that there were 19 hijackers involved in the WTC attack, and that 4 planes were involved, and that only 2 planes were involved, or even that there were no planes, just missiles with holograms, then we would know that there are contradictions in their stories and would have to investigate further.

This argument doesn't fit well with the resurrection narratives, because they are all talking about the same event, equivalent to the WTC attack. If you wanted a good parallel, there would have to be multiple resurrections. There isn't. It's only one. As has been stated before, it's like an auto accident where one says the cars are red and green, another says they were brown and black. Contradictions. It doesn't mean that the cars were red with brown and green & black, it means that somebody isn't telling the truth.

you sound like an apologist. Now, pretend it is 2000 years later and you are not there to expalin.

Well, 2000 years from now, people will probably misunderstand and get it wrong. So?

edit - to expand, people will probably confuse the issue and believe that there was one event. They will try to make it all fit together, and will get it wrong. Depending on how the data is covered, they may never know the truth, and may instead cobble together some incorrect assumptions. The problem remains, though, that the 9/11 attacks is still a multiplicity of events, not one single one. For all we know, the future people may think that the 9/11 "truthers" were correct. Same with the people who believe in biblical literalism.

badger3k · 07-09-2008, 06:58 AM

BTW, just wanted to add my admiration for Amaleq. Dude, you got stones, and the patience of a river. How you do it, going over the same point over and over, like a river washing over the same stone...I don't know. I'm not sure how many times you can show that someone is wrong, but I suspect we may see.

(well, to be honest, I remember some of these threads, such as the Tyre Prophecy one, that have lasted years, with the same points covered again and again, but...

)

So, my hats off to you.

sschlichter · 07-09-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

It is not described as a local tremor, it is described as a great earthquake The gospels all tell us that a group of women went to the tomb.

seismos megas. It is the word for a shaking of the earth, a storm, a commotion, a tempest. the same word is used in other places to mean a storm (Matt 8:24)

And a great storm developed on the sea so that the waves began to swamp the boat. But he was asleep.

Is the storm in this verse also news worthy?

Quote:

Paul's whose writings are the very first christian literature fails to mention any tomb.

Paul wrote one paragraph and included the death, burial, and resurrection. Perhaps he was counting on you to infer the tomb.

(1 Cor 15:3) For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
(1 Cor 15:4) and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,

Quote:

None of the four gospels agree on the sequence of events or who the women were or the number.
Mark has three women, Mathew two, Luke five or six and John one.
No gospel agrees with another on this minor detail.

None of them even try.

Quote:

Did these women see the risen Lord on that day?
Mark says no; Mathew says yes; Luke says no; John says yes.

please guive the verse for each of these assertions.

Quote:

Then there's the disagreements of who was the messenger who announced the resurrection.
It was a young a young man dressed in a white robe, says Mark.
Mathew says it was a supernatural angel who caused the guards to sleep and roll the stone from the entrance to the tomb.
It was two men in dazzling apparel [angels] says Luke.

you are making this up. Just because one says an angel rolled away the stone does not mean it is the same angel that talked. Just because there is one angel talking does not mean there is not another next to him.

Quote:

John says it was two angels, but one morphed into Jesus himself.

please give the verse that describes the morphing in John.

Quote:

The contradictions almost read like four separate stories.

not quite, they read like the same story

Quote:

None agree on who exactly was the first witness to the resurrection.
It was Cephas says Paul. Mark has no first witness.
Mathew says the first ones to see the resurrected Jesus were the women.
Luke says it was Cleopas and his band of travelers.
John says it was Mary Magdalene.

Paul did not say that no one prior to Peter saw Jesus.
Mark did not say that no one ever saw the rsien jesus.
Luke did not say thast the women did not see jesus.
Matthew and John are consistent because the women were with Mary M

Quote:

None agree where the disciples were when all this took place.
Some say Jerusalem, Galilee, on top of a mountain in Galilee, or nearby in Jerusalem's outskirts.

Jerusalem -> fishing in Galilee -> mountain in Galilee, -> Mount of Olives, near Bethany -> back to Jerusalem. Very simple one, they had technology known as sandals.

Quote:

A fair sized novel could quite easely be written on the contradictions in the gospels alone never mind the rest of the N/T

all ears. please give me the highlights of your novel by letting me know the necessary contradictions. Those things that are specifically contradictory. so far, all you have done is assumed a contradiction and added verbs (like morphed) to the text to fit your contradction.

dr lazer blast · 07-09-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Your effort to arbitrarily differentiate Mark's fear as they departed from Matthew's fear and joy as they departed does not appear relevant to the contradiction.

Matthew states the joy followed the message.

You state the joy preceded the message.

You forgot about mark. The angel said 'don't be scared'. It is entirely plausible that mary went into the tomb didn't see Jesus's body, had hope saw the angel, had hope that the angel was going to show her Jesus, when the angel told her gave her the message she didn't understand THE MESSAGE but always kept the hope that Jesus might be somewhere.

Quote:

Yes, the idea that Mary reacted with joy after simply seeing an empty tomb is both implausible and contrary to the text.

A baseless assertion, which is not valid criticism in the realm of logic try again.

Quote:

No, an alternate chronology for John 20 would only describe the order of events in John 20. That really shouldn't need to be explained.

Your narrative has Mary learning Jesus is alive before running to Peter but John states the opposite.

the order of events in john 20 are described in the narrative(for the 6th time). Just because the angels tell her something doesn't mean she believes it.

Once again you have found yourself at square 1.

sschlichter · 07-09-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

you sound like an apologist. Now, pretend it is 2000 years later and you are not there to expalin.

Well, 2000 years from now, people will probably misunderstand and get it wrong. So?

edit - to expand, people will probably confuse the issue and believe that there was one event. They will try to make it all fit together, and will get it wrong. Depending on how the data is covered, they may never know the truth, and may instead cobble together some incorrect assumptions. The problem remains, though, that the 9/11 attacks is still a multiplicity of events, not one single one. For all we know, the future people may think that the 9/11 "truthers" were correct. Same with the people who believe in biblical literalism.

pleae provide the same room for the gospels. it is multiple events (even though you calim it to be one), multiple visits, from multiple people, with muliple perspectives. In this thread, it is being assumed that when it says Mary M, that it has to mean Mary M alone. when it says an angel said, it is being assumed it is the same angel that moved a stone and that it is alone. Any mention of another visit or another angel is seen as contradictory when it is not. this is adding words and meaning to the text. When you ask someone in NY (for example) how many planes were in 9/11, they will probably say 2. they are obviously talking about the twin towers and you understand their context. If you ask someone that worked in the pentagon, they may say 4 because of the difference in their context. sorry, but that is how meaning and language works.

Now that we agree on the flexibility of language and it's context. Can you point out the necessary contradictions that are alleged in this thread? I do not care when you thought they were written and by whom, just interested in verses that contradict one another in these 6 passages.

~Steve

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 09:07 AM

Thanks for the kudos but I have to admit that the relentless failure to grasp even the simplest point has become tiresome. What can you do with someone who needs support for the observation that the obvious cause of Mary's joy is the message she has just heard?

Is there any sense in attempting a rational discussion with someone whose counter-argument consists of essentially nothing but sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"?

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

You forgot about mark.

Explain how Mark negates the described contradiction.

Matthew states the joy followed the message.

You state the joy preceded the message.

Accepting your ridiculous "fear joy then fear" nonsense doesn't appear to change the contradiction. You still have them in the opposite order from the text.

Quote:

It is entirely plausible that mary went into the tomb didn't see Jesus's body, had hope...

This is arguably plausible but the real problem is that it contradicts what John describes. Upon seeing nothing but an empty tomb, Mary is quite sad and concerned about where Jesus' dead body has been moved. She is depicted as quite hopeless right up until she recognizes the living Jesus.

Quote:

...when the angel told her gave her the message she didn't understand THE MESSAGE but always kept the hope that Jesus might be somewhere.

Until she got to Peter when she implausibly completely forgets about it and only expresses concern about his missing dead body.

Quote:

the order of events in john 20 are described in the narrative(for the 6th time).

Repeating a false claim does not make it true. We've already seen that the chronology of your narrative contradicts the chronology of John 20. The best you can do is close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist?

Quote:

Just because the angels tell her something doesn't mean she believes it.

Matthew's joyful reaction to the message that he was alive says she does. This is why you've been struggling so hard to avoid the obvious. Your ridiculous position forces you to deny the clear connection in the story.

Quote:

Once again you have found yourself at square 1.

Yep, still waiting for you to finally get a clue.

sschlichter · 07-09-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

the order of events in john 20 are described in the narrative(for the 6th time). Just because the angels tell her something doesn't mean she believes it.

Once again you have found yourself at square 1.

no doubt. nor, if she does believe it does it mean that she believes it so confidently that she is going to announce her beleifs to the disciples.

Had I been a formerly demon possessed women, I probably would have gone home and not said anything no matter what I believed occurred.

07-09-2008, 06:58 AM	#574
badger3k Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Killeen, TX Posts: 1,388	BTW, just wanted to add my admiration for Amaleq. Dude, you got stones, and the patience of a river. How you do it, going over the same point over and over, like a river washing over the same stone...I don't know. I'm not sure how many times you can show that someone is wrong, but I suspect we may see. (well, to be honest, I remember some of these threads, such as the Tyre Prophecy one, that have lasted years, with the same points covered again and again, but...) So, my hats off to you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2008, 09:07 AM	#578
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Thanks for the kudos but I have to admit that the relentless failure to grasp even the simplest point has become tiresome. What can you do with someone who needs support for the observation that the obvious cause of Mary's joy is the message she has just heard? Is there any sense in attempting a rational discussion with someone whose counter-argument consists of essentially nothing but sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.