Fr.Andrew

(JohnV): Has infidels considered publishing its own dictionary? You know, one where "orderly" means "exhaustive"?
(Fr Andrew): If so, I hope they have room for your own peculiar definition of the word "all"--you know, the one you use when you want to let your God off the hook for the misery and suffering He created with which to infect mankind.


"Saying that God created all things implicitly means that He created all things that have been created."--JohnV (1-2-02)

JohnV

Hmmm, another atheist going off-topic! I must really be on to something, the way people keep trying to change the topic, and the rules of the challenge.

Silent Dave

JohnV

The challenge states that no biblical detail may be omitted. What you don't seem to grasp is that, the details are not in the text, but in the information conveyed by the text.

An account that says "there is a young man in my backyard" conveys the information that there is one man in my backyard. Period. Now that does not absolutely preclude the possibility that there are two young men in my backyard -- and if there are two, then my account would remain factually correct (it would only be incorrect if there were no young men in my backyard). But the reader has concluded, based on my account, that there was one young man in my backyard -- and she was correct to do so, since nothing in my account suggested the presence of anything more or less than one man in my backyard. So my account, while factually correct, conveyed the wrong information.

So your statements that "IF yadda yadda yadda THEN the gospels have a problem" hinge on what you mean by problem. The gospels may (for the sake of discussion) be unproblematic in terms of meeting Dan Barker's challenge, but they then become problematic in terms of facilitating belief that they convey the correct information.

If you don't have a problem with that, then whatever point you're trying to make by hanging around and lathering us with venom, consider it made. Otherwise, keep hacking away at the challenge.


Dave

Butters

I Dunno, I think JohnV has made a point.
His line of reasoning show that the Gospels are secondhand reports of events that were initaily reported by hysterical women, to their cult freinds. As all accounts are incomplete at best, it shows that we can give these accounts the same merit that we give any other anonymous, second hand account of any event that supposedly took place thousands of years ago, which is none.

This is how god makes his presence known? A few anonymouse scribblings by what we suppose are second hand witnesses? The most important event in history, and this is all we have? Incomplete, shoddy, scriblings, from four(?) unknowns?
All this occuring in a backwater nation, while the rest of the world is blissfully unaware?
Geez- I could have done a lot better.

Now John, this dosen't mean I wouldn't like to see you finish the entire challenge, and post it in one post so that it is not strung out everywhere, you know how much trouble atheists have deciphering Christian writings.

diana

Good morning, JohnV!

So Mark's (hysterical?) informer either only told him about one or Mark knew about both and chose to omit the second. Either way, we have willful omission of pertinent facts.

This is why I brought the "coming on the scene of a crime" analogy into it in the first place. It just doesn't make sense to not report everybody who was present when the body is discovered missing. To do so is to effectively lie to the investigators.

In light of how many disagreements there are between accounts, what makes you think this isn't the case?

My apologies. I'm aware that they didn't actually see anything. I was abbreviating.

Hm. OK. I'm going to compare these two passages and see what I come up with. (I'm taking my verses from the NRSV.)

Mark, 16:1-8:
3 women--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome--bring spices to anoint. Sun's up. Stone already rolled back. Young man, sitting on right side somewhere near entrance (but not where the body had laid, because he indicates the body is there), dressed in white. Young man knows who they're looking for and gives women an order to tell apostles to meet Jesus in Galilee. The women disobey this order.

Now Luke 24:1-12:
(To keep things as simple as possible, I'll leave John's account out. Quotes in brackets are missing in some early manuscripts.)

Early dawn, an undisclosed number "they"--Mary Magdalene, Joanna (wife of Herod's steward, Susanna, and "many others"--bring spices. They find the stone rolled away, go in, no body. They stand there perplexed. (Apparently, the young man wasn't there at the door in this parallel universe.) Suddenly, two men in dazzling white clothes stood beside them. These men give the women a slightly different speech, but no order to disobey. These women immediately go tell the eleven, who don't believe them (because hey...it's just women being hysterical). [Peter, unaware of his orders to go to Galilee, goes and checks the tomb for himself then goes home.]

So where was I getting the "two men sitting where Jesus laid" bit, anyway? Oh. Jhn 20:11-12, where Mary is there alone and peeks inside the tomb to find "two men dressed in white sitting where the body had lain." (I knew I'd read that somewhere.)

Could you please explain, JohnV (or whoever else wishes to take a serious stab at it), when, exactly Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, with whom, and what she saw there. Who spoke to her? Was he alone or with someone? Was he sitting or standing and where? What did he say? What did she do with the information?

Chronological order, please. I'd prefer if you incorporate all available accounts, but if you wish to stick with Mark, Luke and John only to answer this question, my point is still well made.

I see. I was under the impression that you were a less literal interpreter and you were doing this for fun, but it appears you have a lot more riding on it than I thought.

Understood. Don't we all?

True. There are a few of reasons that happens. On a busy thread like this one, we often crosspost. Some people don't read the entire thread before responding with what they feel is a pertinent point, so they don't know it's already been made. And sometimes, one of us will come along, see a point, and feel that we can restate it in a way to make it plainer. In this case, it is an honest effort to communicate--not an effort to overwhelm and annoy.

Kosh...you're leaving The Promised Land for Xmas to come here? What are you on, man? I'll be passing through there, as a matter of fact, after the first of the year, en route to Alabama (friends in CO to visit, y'know). I'll think of you guitar-building fiend as I traverse the mountains....

d

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Family Man

Gee, John, exactly how big do you think a tomb is? It's a hole dug into a hill, for crying out loud. And did it have multiple exits? And what about my point that these women supposively took the time to interact with the unknown number of men/angels that were there? Somehow, you seem to have left that out of your response. No, there is no excuse for the inaccurate reports of the number of people seen in the tomb.

And do you really expect us to believe that these women were so distraught that they couldn't even count the number of people they found in a confined space with only one exit? Especially since all they needed to do is to count to two? Seems to be that, by your argument, we can't trust anything about this report. The witnesses were too emotional to report anything accurately.

diana

That would be why Jewish law demands two women to testify against a man.

Us women are too led by our emotions to think straight.

d

Family Man

I'm confused by something John. You say you are a Biblical inerrantist, by which I suppose that you mean that the Bible is divinely inspired, perfect, and without error.

Yet, your entire defense appears to be based on the notion that the discrepancies can be explained by the fact that the people reporting this event were a bunch of hysterical women incapable of reporting even the most basic detail with any degree of accuracy. And what did come off as being consistent is so fantastic that, if it were to happen today, probably would have landed the women in the mental hospital.

Finally given that at least 40 years passed between the witness of these women and the time it was written down, why conclude that any of it was accurate.

It seems to me that you're conceding that it wasn't divinely inspired.

Family Man

Think about it John -- being allowed to add material turns the challenge into a joke. Anything could be reconciled if we're allowed to make up stuff. Sure, you can do it if you want, but don't expect anyone to take your additions seriously.

I don't think you understand what different level of detail means. Here's a statement with one level of detail

Here's another with a different level of detail:

What we have in the Bible is not differing levels of details. What we have are contradictory details. Different thing entirely. And very strange in an allegedly "inerrant" Bible.

David Bowden

JohnV,

I suppose it's going off-topic to mention this, but your "reasonable person" would be justified in demanding extrabiblical confirmation of any of the events that are in these four accounts, remaining quite healthily skeptical until such is obtained.

Regardless, my point still stands - if we give you the license to insert events in this manner, it sets a bad precedent by which any chronologically unguarded passage in a text can be reinterpreted from its clear order to include any details from another account that don't specifically make such conflation rhetorically impossible.

We know that Matthew et. al. did not write the gospels in concert; it is implausible that the stories they tell were intended, at their writing, to be dovetailed with accounts that mention details which significantly alter the flow of events as they, individually, dramatize them - all requiring at least one implausible plot device (Magdalene's movements to and from the group) which appears in absolutely no account of the Easter events.

You resist taking this very reasonable objection into account, JohnV, but there it is.

Actually, JohnV, on Dec 5, when I asked:
"Have you decided not to do Barker's version of the challenge and chosen mine instead?"

you answered:
"I'm covering his first question, or, if you prefer, your revision."

And for everyone's benefit, here's my revision, as posted on December 5:

"Using only material from the NT's Easter day accounts, give us an outline of that day's events, without omitting or changing a single detail from those accounts. Using Barker's language: Tell us "what happened; who said what, when; and where these things happened.""

I do prefer my revision, and have made it clear that I did, because as I've repeatedly stated in this thread, Barker's version is flawed. Mine is much more concise and has the added benefit over Barker's of being consistent in its demands on the person accepting the challenge. I criticize your scenario under the fair assumption from your answer to my question that you would be giving us a plausible harmonization that uses only material from the NT Easter day accounts, not invented plot details.

So I change nothing. Provide us with a harmonization that covers my revision of Barker's challenge, or concede defeat. You have acknowledged in a post addressed to me that I can interpret your efforts here as though you accept the challenge on my terms. Now: deliver on those terms.

I change nothing. And I think one operative word here is "plausible," JohnV. You've yet to offer us a truly plausible scenario. And again, I change nothing. Give us a plausible scenario that covers my revision, and then you will have satisfied the challenge you accepted.

I will continue to hold you to exactly these terms until you either deliver a scenario consistent with them, or concede defeat.

Not true; I'll say it for (at least) a third time in this thread: I did notice this contradiction before you pointed it out.

I'll remind the reader that by JohnV's criteria for harmonizing the gospels "anything in scripture that's not specifically time-dated isn't fixed in time, even by the context given by a particular writer." Since the writers wrote for an audience which lacked access to the corrective gospel material from other sources, it is implausible that each gospel's set of details was meant by its authors to be broken up and retrofitted to information contained only in another gospel.

JohnV by all appearances wants us to believe that the gospel writers understood that they were leaving out details that would ultimately be furnished by other writers and knitted together in such a way as to form a whole story. Any scenario built on such an implausible assumption is itself implausible. JohnV's harmonization is not plausible (but not just because of this, as our various rebuttals have shown). What is plausible is that the gospel writers wrote accounts which they meant to pass off as true, but which tell very different stories.

For instance, Matthew undoubtedly meant to convey to his audience (both the original recipients of his gospel, and any who would later read it) that the Marys were both present at the tomb when the angel descended, sat on the stone (from whence he spoke to them, having not moved from there in Matthew's account), and that Mary Magdalene, being listed among the set of women on this early morning trip, received the angel's encouraging news and left with uplifted spirits.

Any gospel account which gives us a different impression of the events of Easter morning is in contradiction with Matthew's account; Jn's version of events is so radically different that JohnV has to invent, despite the terms of the challenge he accepted, a plot scenario wherein Mary Magdalene visits the tomb repeatedly and leaves and rejoins the group of women in just such a way that all of the dialogue and emotional descriptions listed in scripture manage to fit.

Even if I were to grant JohnV the opportunity to invent whatever dramatic developments makes his dialogue fit together, he cannot escape the fact that Matthew and John do not write their accounts in such a way that implies that any of these hypothesized events occured.

By all internal indications, each resurrection account considers itself whole and complete, not needing information from the other accounts to put events in their true context. If we let each gospel writer's version of events count as a competently-told story (and not as hole-filled accounts awaiting corrective details from the others), each of the gospel accounts contains elements which contradict the rest.

All of this renders JohnV's harmonization effort implausible, in addition to its being contrary to the terms of the challenge he accepted.

I change no conditions, and your scenario isn't plausible. You haven't satisfied the initial conditions you accepted, and I'm not letting you claim victory until you've done so.

That's your opinion. Your scenario isn't remotely plausible, JohnV, for reasons that I've articulated in several places in this thread.

I am obligated to call them as I see them. In order to accept that your scenario is an accurate representation of all the data mentioned in scripture, it must be admitted that not one of the gospel writers got Mary Magdalene's story straight, that Matthew misrepresented her presence at the angel's announcement, that John misrepresented Mary Magdalene's association with the other women (and her movements), etc. What you call a "plausible scenario" requires several implausible workarounds to be entertained at the same time, but I won't let them pass without pointing out their implausibility.

My rebuttal stands. Deliver a plausible scenario consistent with the terms in my revision of Barker's Easter Challenge, or concede that you cannot or will not do so.

If you insist that, from your subjective viewpoint, your harmonization is plausible, then no one can force you to change your mind. Regardless of your state of mind with regard to your argument's plausibility, however, my rebuttals remain valid, you haven't kept to the terms of the challenge as I articulated them (which you allowed me to hold you to), and your idea of a plausible scenario is built on an implausible set of hypotheses concerning the knowledge and intentions of the writers of the gospels, as well as of the events they describe.

So, again, my objection to your harmonization stands. But not just because I say so. You simply haven't delivered as advertized.

I changed no conditions after you accepted the challenge on my terms. And you did do just that, prior to posting your harmonization. But you haven't delivered on our agreed terms. And as you yourself note, the harmonization you offer us must be plausible. However, you've failed to meet that criterion in several places, already noted.

No, I'm not. And even if the terms of the challenge had granted you the opportunity to use invented details, you still have no plausible basis for inventing it (except by trying using an hypothesis about the writers which I argue is itself implausible).

No, you're not, JohnV.

1.) You're only allowed to use material from the NT accounts. You told me I could believe that you had accepted my revision of Barker's challenge, remember.
2.) Your account is not plausible, because we can't arrive at it without accepting at least one implausible (and extra-biblical) hypothesis (see above).
3.) A woman walking away from a group is indeed plausible, by itself. However, it is implausible that Mary Magdalene actually did so without one mention by even one writer, given every gospel accounts's attention to her movements. It is not shown in any scriptural reference (required by my terms of the challenge, which you accepted), so all of these "harmonizing" movements had to be invented in order to bring together the internally consistent but mutually contradictory accounts of her movements in the gospels.

My objection stands.

Wrong. You accepted the Easter challenge on my terms - or at least you told me I could interpret things that way. Those terms expressly forbid material insertions that have no NT reference. And as I've pointed out, your inserted sub-plot concerning Mary Magdalene's wanderings is implausible in and of itself.

I have no idea where baseball comes into all of this.

You accepted the terms as I stated them prior to posting your harmonization attempt. I change nothing, desire to change nothing, and only wish that you'd hold to your end of the deal.

You impute something to my character and volition that is false. If I've come across as condescending, it's unintentional. At least one other Bible alleged contradiction (the Judas incident) had been mentioned before you volunteered to take on the Easter challenge. My posting of other contradictions only expanded the discussion beyond the original post; that happens on these forums; nobody has informed me that it's impolite to do so when the discussion isn't really going anywhere anyway (and I'd argue that before you posted your harmonization attempt, this was the case; perhaps I am wrong and the others felt that I derailed a coherent discussion; nobody bothered to tell me so if that's the case). And I openly addressed that list of other contradictions to any who qualify as "truly ambitious," not to you specifically. If you don't want to address them, then ignore them like everyone else has.

I certainly didn't expect or intend to alter your tone, which is and always will be entirely yours to control.

Besides objecting strongly to your imputation of condescension on my part, I find this slur reprehensible, JohnV. I don't believe that Kosh ever took it to this level with you.

Also, your words would seem to imply that you consider(ed) me an "asshole." I do very much hope that I'm completely mistaken in this reading of your words.

-David

[ edited to fix tags ]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]</p>