Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You aren't using that term correctly, either. Nothing in my refutation of your attempted harmonization is accurately characterized as "semantics games" [sic].

yes I am, you're just playing silly little nit picking semantic games, flailing trying to hold onto a point.

Quote:

This also makes no sense since my arguments that there are incompatibilities between the accounts presupposes they are telling the same story.

not when you continue to assert that mary reacted with only fear.

Quote:

Again, I've provided the evidence of the texts, themselves. Why do you continue to make claims that are so transparently false?

where?

Quote:

On the point of the joyful reaction of Mary, we are dealing with the absence of detail from the accounts in your attempted harmonization. IOW, you failed from the outset to accomplish the goal your harmonization was supposed to achieve.

like I said, im just ironing out the details. You apparently have a problem with my narrative, and you're expressing said problem. Your problem is when mary runs to peter, right now we're just clearing that up, so once it gets cleared up that will just be another detail ironed out.

It doesn't change the fact that you ignored the other gospels, because in my narrative I never said anything about fear OR joy, so you just picking out joy instead of fear when I didn't talk about either is still you ignoring the other 3 gospels.

Quote:

Again, Mary's joyful reaction is not from "my" narrative but from the stories you were supposed to harmonize using all the details given. The same ones you claim I haven't been using as evidence.

You simply did not do this and, when this is done, the inconsistency is apparent.

It doesn't change the fact that you ignored the other gospels, because in my narrative I never said anything about fear OR joy, so you just picking out joy instead of fear when I didn't talk about either is still you ignoring the other 3 gospels.

Quote:

That is the conclusion your attempted harmonization is supposed to establish. Do you not understand that assuming it as part of your argument constitutes circular reasoning and/or begging the question?

like I said, im just ironing out the details. You apparently have a problem with my narrative, and you're expressing said problem. Your problem is when mary runs to peter, right now we're just clearing that up, so once it gets cleared up that will just be another detail ironed out.

It doesn't change the fact that you ignored the other gospels, because in my narrative I never said anything about fear OR joy, so you just picking out joy instead of fear when I didn't talk about either is still you ignoring the other 3 gospels.

Quote:

You failed to include the joyful reaction and the inconsistency remains. Mary's joyful reaction to the angel's reassurance is inconsistent with Mary's concern about the location of Jesus' body in the fourth version. Your attempted harmonization failed to resolve this inconsistency. You simply ignored it.

I also failed to include the fear as well, so once again you picking out joy and not mentioning fear when I didn't say anything about either of them is still you ignoring the other 3 gospels. So even in your critisicm you still ignored the other accounts.

Quote:

You do so only by relying on a logical fallacy. It is logically fallacious to claim that the doubts of others requires or even suggests that Mary doubted as well. It simply does nothing of the sort.

Nope, I am not claiming that. I am claiming the the story of Jesus rising from the dead is a hard story to accept, that is what I am claiming.

Quote:

Only in the version where she had not received any assurance from the angel. When the assurance and joyful reaction are included (as your harmonization attempt should have done), the inconsistency is apparent. Do you truly not understand that point or is ignoring it all you can think to do?

arguments from silence. Breaking atheos record I think

Quote:

That is simply another blatantly untrue assertion. I have explicitly mentioned it and noted it changes nothing about the fact she also responded with joy.

joy and fear, ignoring the other gospels.

Quote:

I note also, however, that you appear to have retreated (without acknowledgment) from your earlier assertion that this was somehow not a reaction. :thumbs:

I was actually caught up in your semantic games, so I don't retreat.

Quote:

While this likely connects back to the original version (ie Mark) which only described fear, it is hardly remarkable that Mary's joy in learning from an angel that Jesus was not really dead would be accompanied by fear. What is described certainly qualifies as a traumatic experience.

As I've already noted, however, this has no impact on the inconsistency between Mary's joyful reaction and the concerns described in John. It simply makes no sense to claim such a significant change in attitude absent some sort of head trauma.

traumatic experiences have doubt in them. If you heard your mother died on the phone (God forbid) you would express some sort of doubt.

Quote:

I'm clearly not doing that but you would do well to take your own advice since that appears to be your approach.

Like I said earlier, it will not be perfect the first time I write the narrative, I know I would leave some details out. However you being the critic would do well to criticize me in a well thought out manner.

Quote:

A detective would note the same inconsistency that I have.

"You were scared but happy when you heard from the angel that Jesus was not dead? Is that right, ma'am?"

"Yes, sir."

"But then you went to Peter and expressed concern that you didn't know where the body had been laid? Why did you go back to thinking of Jesus as a dead body after being happy to hear he was not dead?"

"Um...I would like to speak to my lawyer, sir."

wrong again.

"But then you went to Peter and expressed concern that you didn't know where the body had been laid? Why did you go back to thinking of Jesus as a dead body after being happy to hear he was not dead?"

"Because it was a difficult story to believe, I mean honestly, someone rising from the dead? I saw his body gone, but the angels could've taken it somewhere, they said he was going to go before the disciples in Galilee but they didn't say where in Galilee, it was such a traumatic event, I mean they claimed Jesus rose from the dead, just because I didn't see the dead body doesn't mean I thought he was alive, they could've taken the body ya know, I saw Jesus rising people from the dead before, I read the story of Elijah doing it in the Old Testament, so I thought the angels rose him from the dead, but where was the body? something didn't add up, they said he was going before us in Galilee, but they didn't say where at the present time, something didn't add up, so I ran to peter and told him the angels took Jesus and I don't know where they laid him"

"I see, makes sense"

Quote:

Again, why post such blatant falsehoods? I have done so here (direct reference rather than actual quote) and here. My arguments have been based soley upon what is stated in the texts.

I still don't see acceptance in any of those scriptures....

Quote:

To paraphrase Johnson, I provided the explanation but I cannot provide you an understanding of it. Mary's joyful reaction combined with the fact that she related what she was told to the disciples clearly indicates she accepted what the angel told her.

That would be your 'personal' take on the scriptuers, however since we are dealing with my narrative, it seems this is irrelevant.

Quote:

Another false statement. I never asserted that she responded only with joy. I initially focused only on her joy because that was all that was relevant to my argument. I subsequently acknowledged that she also responded with fear but indicated that it had no impact on my argument. Again, why post things so easily shown to be untrue?

You did assert she responded with only joy, then later after I pointed it out you saw your error and started saying fear, but then continued to assert only joy.

Quote:

This is the first time you've mentioned it as though it was relevant to your argument so this is yet another falsehood. I certainly accept the fear described in Mark's text. I also accept the addition of joy provided by Matthew's version.

Ironing out the details...

Quote:

I've noted several times that your narrative fails to incorporate all the details of the original stories and specifically identified what was missing and why it creates a problem for your efforts. See my Johnson paraphrase.

ya like i said, it's not going to be perfect the first time I write it down, all I am doing is ironing out the details.

Quote:

My narrative asserts that Mary doubted the what the angels said. The reason she felt joy is because she didn't see the body, but the reason she was felt fear was because she doubted what the angels said was true.
Christ rising from the dead was difficult to accept, and she ran to Peter.
What do you have to refute this?

Quote:

I would first note that this is an entirely new effort on your part to explain Mary's joyful reaction so your complaints that I haven't responded to it are more blatant falsehood. You're claiming now that Mary was initially joyful to see that Jesus' body was missing? That is inconsistent with both Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:2.

I would also like to note that since it is up to you to criticize my narrative, there is no possible way I could prepare for every single question and criticism, not to mention that you only asserted that mary was joyful and not fearful, and until I pointed out your glaring error, did you accept the fact that mary was fearful as well, so until you brought me PROPER criticism, I coudln't bring you a PROPER response.

Quote:

"And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:"

does not mean that they couldn't still be perplexed. Traumatic events have a lot of emotion in them, fear, doubt, hope, puzzlement, just because the angels told them something does not mean they accepted it as truth, im sure they wanted proof for themselves, so that does nothing to prove that they could not still doubt.

Quote:

They were perplexed. No hint or suggestion that they immediately and joyfully assumed he was not actually dead.

i never said they joyfully assumed they were not dead. Like I said, they walked in saw the empty clothes. They were perplexed because they did not see the body, saw the angels, the angels told them what happend. They departed with joy AND fear, joy because they had not seen the body, and fear because it is possible the angels might not be telling the WHOLE truth. Mary went to peter they have taken the lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they put him' Not having an understanding of the ressurection, she assumed based upon what she saw, she assumed the angels had ressurected Christ, i.e "They have taken away our Lord" and put his body somewhere in galilee, but the specific place in Galiee she doesn't know "and we know not where they have laid him"
now what do you have to refute that statement?

Quote:

She was happy Jesus' body was missing even though she doubted the explanation offered by the angel? She was joyful that someone had moved or stolen the body? :rolling:

she doubted the WHOLE truth, i.e she probably didn't understand it. She thought the angels ressurected Christ and put him somewhere.

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why would each author need to include each detail?

THe problem is not that some details are not in each author's account. The problem is that details in one author's version of what's supposed to be the same event are incompatible with another author's version.

THey can't all be true, even if sorted into an acceptable chronography.

wrong, during a traumatic event, people express all kinds of emtion, my friend was killed in an accident, when I first heard the news i doubted, then got sad, mad, frustrated, etc. etc. now if I heard he had rose from the dead, there would be more doubt, joy in the form of hope, fear for it not being true. So it is entierly possible and in no way inconsistant that they went through those emotions.

sschlichter · 06-11-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why would each author need to include each detail?

THe problem is not that some details are not in each author's account. The problem is that details in one author's version of what's supposed to be the same event are incompatible with another author's version.

THey can't all be true, even if sorted into an acceptable chronography.

I do not see that in the examples you are discussing. None of the authors disallow a range of emotions when highlighting a specific one. Explain to me why any of the authors could not have skipped the account of doubt or concern that could easily exist before the account of joy. Was a time period specified in the text as to when the joy began?

Why would the account be less valid if any of the authors had not even known that there was a period of doubt or concern? For each account to be true, they do not each have to be 100% of the story, do they?

~Steve

Net2004 · 06-11-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Another false statement. I never asserted that she responded only with joy. I initially focused only on her joy because that was all that was relevant to my argument. I subsequently acknowledged that she also responded with fear but indicated that it had no impact on my argument. Again, why post things so easily shown to be untrue?

"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

isn't the words "fear" and "great joy" describing the condition of the women? what has it got to do with the report?the verse says they "ran to report it" what did they report? obviously what the angel told them to report. note that verse 9 says that the women encountered jesus BEFORE they met the deciples.verse 9 is sufficent enough to destroy "drs" doubt argument.

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

Another false statement. I never asserted that she responded only with joy. I initially focused only on her joy because that was all that was relevant to my argument. I subsequently acknowledged that she also responded with fear but indicated that it had no impact on my argument. Again, why post things so easily shown to be untrue?

"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

isn't the words "fear" and "great joy" describing the condition of the women? what has it got to do with the report?the verse says they "ran to report it" what did they report? obviously what the angel told them to report. note that verse 9 says that the women encountered jesus BEFORE they met the deciples.verse 9 is sufficent enough to destroy "drs" doubt argument.

WHy do people continue to come and try to criticize without reading my narrative.
Mary mother of James and Salome were the ones that encountered Jesus before they met the disciples. Mary magdelene went her own seperate way to find Peter and was not with the group when they encountered Jesus. So verse 9 does not destroy anything, as we are talking about Mary Magdelene, not the other women.
Read the narrative THEN comment.

Can I please have a moderator add the following to the title of this thread? "Please read DLB's narrative before commenting" because a lot of these unneccesary commetns can be avoided if they would just read the narrative and the rules of the challenge.

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 04:10 PM

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

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 04:26 PM

Further more, traumatic events cause MIXTURE of emotions, saying you only experience 2 emotions during a traumatic is beyond ridiculous, going to your masters tomb and finding his body is not there, and finding 2 angels. To further prove my point, they were confused BEFORE they even saw the angels.

Quote:

4And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

there were also AFRAID.

Quote:

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

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

Kharakov · 06-11-2008, 04:31 PM

So, lazer, I've seen an atheist's response to this question, but I might enjoy seeing yours.

John 19:30 vs. Luke 23:46

dr lazer blast · 06-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharakov

So, lazer, I've seen an atheist's response to this question, but I might enjoy seeing yours.

John 19:30 vs. Luke 23:46

Quote:

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Jhon 19 and Luke 23 are not in the conditions of the challenge, so if you want to talk about those verses I suggest you make another thread. The current thread has already been split once for going off topic, and considering that I am responding to a challenge I'd rather not have additional debates on the side. If I were in a boxing match, I would not fight 2 different fights at once, so I see no reason to have 2 different debates going on at once either.

You can claim I am ignoring you all you want, and that I can't answer the question, or im scared, blinded, etc, but if you really want an answer that bad I'm sure you'll have no problem setting a thread.

Kharakov · 06-11-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharakov

So, lazer, I've seen an atheist's response to this question, but I might enjoy seeing yours.

John 19:30 vs. Luke 23:46

Jhon 19 and Luke 23 are not in the conditions of the challenge, so if you want to talk about those verses I suggest you make another thread. The current thread has already been split once for going off topic, and considering that I am responding to a challenge I'd rather not have additional debates on the side. If I were in a boxing match, I would not fight 2 different fights at once, so I see no reason to have 2 different debates going on at once either.

You can claim I am ignoring you all you want, and that I can't answer the question, or im scared, blinded, etc, but if you really want an answer that bad I'm sure you'll have no problem setting a thread.

You do know that not addressing this particular inconsistency in an honest and straightforward manner makes the rest of your justifications for biblical error appear disingenuous?

Especially after going on a tangent in this thread with me and a few others, writing our own stories and challenging others to create excuses for the deliberate inconsistencies.

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

06-11-2008, 04:31 PM	#138
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	So, lazer, I've seen an atheist's response to this question, but I might enjoy seeing yours. John 19:30 vs. Luke 23:46

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.