Family Man

I really doubt he can. I appears to me that Diana and I have destroyed his "only" argument, and the only way he can deal with it is to hand-wave and call me pedantic, in spite the fact that it is he that is making linguistically obtuse arguments while I'm pointing to the plain meaning of the text.



[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Butters

O.K. Here is a resolution that would work as John V. would have us read the texts.

John, Matthew, Mark and Luke were sitting around togehter one day, at least a month after it all happened. One of them says,"Hey, this is a lot of work writing all this down! I wish we could save some time!" Another says "Well how about if one of us concentrates on one aspect of the story." "one of us keep tract of how many people there were, and just gloss over or leave out the other details. Someone else write a detailed account of the time, and don't worry about the rest, someone else keep tract of Angels, earthquakes and such, and don't worry about the rest." So even though we are recording the greatest event in the history of mankind, we don't have to worry about details in each version, because in a few hundred years, someone will collect all our work and put it into one book, and any one will be able to figure out what REALLY happened."

As they finished one asked "Hey, shouldn't we proof read each others work, to see if our stories match?" "Naw, we were guided by the holy ghost, I'm sure they match up fine!"

JohnV

Re: Diana

Suppose you see two men running down the alley etc. You make your report, the cop takes it down - two men running down the alley.

Another person saw three men running out of the alley. A different cop takes it down - three men running out of the alley.

What conclusion should we draw from this?

JohnV

Re: Kosh
Yes, really. As you quoted yourself:

Luke 1, 3
I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you
It's possible, but it's less fun for me!
I'm not trying to...

Family Man

That someone didn't see the whole story. Now your defense is that Mark didn't know the whole story?

JohnV

Re: Butters
David Bowden finds more than one interpretation:

"Beginning on Easter morning, through the end of each gospel's account of Easter day, or perhaps the end of Jesus' life on earth, depending on how you interpret the challenge."

Is he wrong?
Why is that? Are you saying that an account must be exhaustive in order to be credible? Tht's pretty ridiculous. Hehe.

JohnV

I agree.

Family Man

So divinely inspired Mark didn't know the whole story, then?

JohnV

Probably not. I don't see that inspiration reads omnisicience...but you people here probably do!

Has infidels considered publishing its own dictionary? You know, one where "orderly" means "exhaustive"?

diana

JohnV,

1. One of us is lying outright, or
2. One of us is mistaken.

So if Luke states that the two men were sitting where the body had lain, and Mark reports seeing one man and makes no mention of the other, what conclusion should we draw from this?

You keep forgetting that they were sitting together wearing shiny white raiment. It isn't like Mark just missed seeing one.

What choices does this leave you with? They weren't even in motion--which is arguably harder to count. It was daylight. They glowed.

There they were. Two angelic light bulbs. Did he just not see one?

d

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>