Chili

Without reading the entire post let me suggest that resurrection is equal to theft if you consider that the raising of Jesus effectively placed him subservient to Christ instead of the wily entrepreneur that created him. Matthew would never know to call this theft but John should and would say this since Christian-ity is the state of mind wherein the Jewish condition finds completion.

About this time Jesus would be called Christ Jesus and after Ascension Jesus becomes known as Jesus Christ just to show that reason prevailed.

Chili

Yes, but is it not true that Matthew is just here to be exploited?

The presentation of Matthew is very nice but it is limited to Jewish insight and that does not include the victory that comes with resurrection. In fact, the chief priests and the pharisees warned Pilate that if the body would be stolen the final imposter will be worse than the first -- which would be true from their perspective as Jew under God but that is not what Jesus had in mind when all was said and done (eg. "it is finished and also "do not cling to me").

As we have it here, the son of man becomes God with an identity of his own and that identity became known as Christ, with the journey of Jesus being the common path for believers to follow.

The Magdalene controversy exist only to make it known that when the son of man is raised the wold is no more for which reason it remained dark for Magdalene who therefore did not recognize Jesus until he spoke to her.

That Jesus did not want Magdalene on his side suggests that the faculty of reason must be placed subservient to the will of the father so the abundance of heaven will be ours for ages to come.

There is also no need to sympathise with Magdalene who is kind of used to eating dirt by now.

Farrell Till

I have a better question: Is it not true that Chili is just here to evade the Mary Magdalene problem that I explicated in my initial post?

Yes, it is. It was so nice, in fact, that Chili couldn't reply to it, so he chose to evade it and wag in irrelevant issues.

I assume that readers had no difficulty seeing that Chili is begging the question of whether the resurrection actually occurred. Since the resurrection narratives are filled with inconsistencies, we have no good reason to think that they in any way verify the historicity of such an unlikely claim that a man literally died and then returned to life.

Chili is again engaging in question begging. What evidence does he have that the "warning" to Pilate actually happened? The point of the debate over the Mary Magdalene problem is to establish inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, so Chili could go a long way toward establishing confidence in those narratives if he would show us that there is no inconsistency in Matthew's and John's depictions of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning. Rather than attempting to do that, however, he is diverting attention from the Mary Magdalene problem by wagging in irrelevant issues.

If he can give us credible evidence that the chief priests and pharisees warned Pilate about a possible stealing of the body, I will be glad to discuss this with him in another thread, but the mere fact that one of the gospels claimed that such a warning was issued is hardly reliable evidence. Chili is asking us to disregard the credibility factor and accept as historical fact a claim for which there is no corroborating evidence.

If I knew what point Chili was trying to make here, I would reply to it, but he obviously has difficulty communicating coherent ideas.

We have here, instead, another example of Chili's question begging. What is his evidence that "the son of man becomes God" other than the fact that biased documents written by the disciples of Jesus said so. I am sure that Chili would not allow, say, a Muslim to beg questions that he has no evidence to support except what the Qur'an said. Likewise, I doubt that he would allow a Hindu to beg questions for which he has no supporting evidence except what the Vedas say.

Come on, Chili, can you show us that there is no discrepancy in the depictions of Mary Magdalene in Matthew's and John's resurrection narratives? If so, show us. If not, stop wasting our time.

If I knew what point Chili was trying to make, I would respond to it. He is a prime example of how people who encounter cognitive dissonance in their political or religious ideas will bend over backwards to rationalize them away.

This is obviously more question begging that does absolutely nothing to resolve the Mary Magdalene problem. As I just said, Chili is a prime example of how people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of how much evidence disputes it.

Chili is saying that he is going to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead no matter how ridiculous the claim is and now matter how flimsy the evidence to support it. If Chili has a solution to offer for the Mary Magdalene problem, I wish he would present it. Otherwise, I am going to request that he spare us his sermonizing. If I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church.

And this proves what? The only thing I can see that it proves is that Chili is going to believe what he wants to believe come what may. As I just said, if Chili has a solution to the Mary Magdalene problem, he should post it. If not, he should save his sermonizing for those who may want to hear it.

To those who are following this thread, I think I can assure them that when Jerry McDonald sends his first post on this issue, he will at least try to address the Mary Magdalene problem. Chili, then, would do well to stand aside and watch while McDonald does the debating on this issue. It is obvious that Chili doesn't understand even the most elementary points of debating.

Farrell Till

Here is more sermonizing from Chili, who seems not to understand that this is a forum in which the Mary Magdalene problem is supposed to be debated. If he has a solution to the problem, why doesn't he present it instead of boring us with his sermonizing? When I read his comments, I wonder if even he knows what he means by them.

And about this time Chili continued his question begging of issues such as whether Jesus was the "Christ" or whether he rose from the dead and ascended. Now try to read this very carefully, Chili, and see if you can understand it. I am not here to listen to your sermonizing. I am here to debate the Mary Magdalene problem. Do you have a solution to that problem? If so, present it. If not, please spare us the sermonizing.

To show just how little Chili apparently knows about the Bible, let's take his final statement above, where he said that after the ascension of Jesus, he became know "as Jesus Christ." If this statement is true, perhaps Chili can tell us why Jesus was referred to as Jesus Christ well before the alleged ascension.

If Chili would like to see other examples, I will be glad to refer them to him. Meanwhile, I would like to request that he refrain from trying to be an apologist, a role for which he is obviously not qualified.

Chili

Sorry about the sermon Farrel but as I read the Gospels the apparent Magdalene problem is not a problem at all. It just shows what resurrection is all about as part of the journey prior to ascension. Well he wasn't. The line you cited (John 17:1) refers to what eternal life is about.Go ahead and you are right, I am not an apologist but just a good reader.

So why do you think it is not proper for me to show you that you can't always blame the bible for its inconsistencies? Is this the wrong forum for that?

Oh, and yes, I know very little about the bible but I am happy to have people like you as my teacher.

Boro Nut

Simple. There were two Mary Magadalenes. Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary (MacDylan?). I'm surprised you haven't heard this argument before. If you keep on shutting down avenues of logic I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Boro Nut

Chili

No, there is only one Magdalene and there is only one Mary theotokos who in Matthew was the light of Mary M. The pharisees knew that born-againers who fail to resurrect become extremely valliant as imposters and of these it can be said that they have double dose of Magdalene in them.

Farrell Till

If you are indeed sorry for the sermonizing, then you will stop it, but this post indicates that we can expect nothing but more of the same from you. I have little patience with <edit>. When they crop up on my internet list http://iierrancy.com, I delete them if they refuse to desist and stick to the issues that are being discussed. I have presented the Mary Magdalene problem here in detail, and so far you have ignored it completely. You do not make it go away by just saying that "the apparent Magdalene problem is not a problem at all." You have the obligation to show that it isn't a problem, or are you unaware that argumentation by assertion is a logical fallacy?

And this reference to eternal life, which was made well before the ascension, clearly used "Jesus Christ" in reference to Jesus. This is just one more example of how you are refusing to address points that refute your assertions.

You're a "good reader"? If you are, why can't you see that John 17:1-2 is clearly inconsistent with your claim that Jesus didn't become known as "Jesus Christ" until after his alleged ascension? Anyway, it wasn't necessary for you to admit that you are not an apologist, because that is very apparent to those who take the time to read your trolling posts.

I don't blame the Bible for its inconsistencies. I blame those who wrote the books that have those inconsistencies. The presence of those inconsistencies is clear evidence that the Bible was not "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity. If you intend to participate in this forum, why don't you take the time to understand what the issues are?

Yes, it is, because this is a forum in which you are supposed to show that there are no inconsistencies in the Bible. When you admit that there are inconsistencies but that the Bible cannot be blamed for them, you are bringing up an entirely different issue.

<edit>, and I don't intend to encourage you in diverting attention from the purpose of this thread, so if you post again but do not try to offer a solution to the Mary Magdalene problem, you will be ignored.

Someone who admits to knowing "very little about the Bible" has no business trying to conduct discussions with someone who knows quite a bit about the Bible. Do yourself and us a favor and try watching from the sidelines.

Chili

In case you missed it Farrell, ascension is not part of Matthew but it is part of John which I call the Catholic gospel for that reason (I hope you don't mind). Like you know, the gospels are consecutive instead of synoptic and take us from Judaism to Catholicism where ascension is part of the journey so that we can have saints in heaven.

But you are correct. You want to discuss your problem and I just told you that your problem is not my problem.That was the same Jesus but written long after the ascension of Jesus to Christ. I would say that Jesus should never be called Christ until after ascension. Does the bible not say that we must be inspired to read it?My participation is not in the form of an argument because there is no argument. Some bibles have a pretty good slant in their translation and so I can't say that yours is free from error. So what is the purpose of this tread if your argument is made in another forum? Yes but I would argue that it is redundant to know much about the bible if you know what should be in it. Have you ever thought that you are a sideline showman trying to peddle your thoughts in effort to make you feel better?

ETA, waith a minute Farrell, didn't the children of Israel try to peddle their thoughts once from the sideline after they had studied the scriptures for 40 years? They have a name for that, I am sure, and probably a feast that promised better days ahead.