tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post6360360240674228646..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: ANSWERING EASTER CONTRADICTIOND. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-76716285123250326432009-04-25T03:20:00.000-04:002009-04-25T03:20:00.000-04:00And BTW John, thank you for sticking with it till ...And BTW John, thank you for sticking with it till you had the basic facts right, even if cast in the worst possible light and without the evidence to support my claims (space is limited after all). But really...did you actually read The Easter Answer or just give it ol' ten minute skim? Just curious.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24860323180361221722009-04-25T03:12:00.000-04:002009-04-25T03:12:00.000-04:00Loftus: Barker's Challenge is to logically fit the...Loftus: Barker's Challenge is to logically fit the resurrection accounts together without contradiction, NOT to put together a story that is going to solve all the mysteries of the universe, or meet with your approval. <br /><br />Face it. The accounts were written too soon after the witnesses testified to seeing Christ alive for the whole thing to have developed as a legend. You might succeed in making a convincing argument if the gospels were second century, and if Christianity had slowly trickled into being in its first hundred years, and especially IF the accounts could be proven as grossly contradictory as critics like Barker imagine. They are not. They were written within the faith communities of the original eye-witnesses, read by, and circulated by them. If the accounts had the basic who did what, when, and where facts wrong, they would have been fixed or tossed. But they quickly became famous best sellers--and still are--worldwide.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25588684460811954582009-04-24T18:40:00.000-04:002009-04-24T18:40:00.000-04:00Since I mischaracterized Kingsley and do not want ...Since I mischaracterized Kingsley and do not want to do that to anyone I've revised my critique of his book <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/stephen-r-kingsleys-easter-answer-is-no.html" REL="nofollow">right here</A>. In fact one of the paragraphs was written by him for which I am thankful.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22168559481143260872009-04-22T21:38:00.000-04:002009-04-22T21:38:00.000-04:00I have read Stephen R. Kingsley's booklet, The Eas...I have read Stephen R. Kingsley's booklet, <I>The Easter Answer</I>, and my conclusion is that it not only contains a great deal of ignorance about how the gospels were written in the first place (see Luke 1:1-4; he quotes from the discredited longer ending of Mark), but also the scenario he presents is quite flawed in several places. <br /><br />Take for example Matthew 28:1-7:<br /><br /><I>1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. <br /><br />2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. <br /><br />5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."</I>According to Kinglsey, with a little exegetical gerrymandering, verse 1 describes events that took place on 5:45 PM, BEFORE the Sabbath day began right after Jesus was buried. Then he claims verses 2-4 describes events that took place at about 3 AM Saturday morning (which, BTW, means Jesus was emphatically not raised on Sunday morning). And finally he claims verses 5-7 took place at 6:30 AM when women first discover the tomb empty. <br /><br />The problems are inherent just in these short verses, for when reading Matthew they are meant to describe a flow to the events he narrates. It requires Kingsley to rewrite the Gospel to produce one of his own, which as it stands disagrees with all four of them individually. As Bart Ehrman argues, what happened that morning depends on which Gospel we read! <br /><br />Kingsley has Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb four times, telling the disciples on three separate occasions about it, and having Peter run to discover the empty tomb not once, but twice. On Mary’s third visit to the empty tomb she encounters Jesus himself and touches him (John 20:10-17). But on her fourth visit to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1-2) Mary Magdalene goes with other women to anoint the dead body of Jesus keeping silent about that she has already knew the tomb was empty and that Jesus had arisen! Kingsley suggests Mary kept silent here, presumably because Peter and the other disciples told her to, without any Biblical support, or that Jesus ONLY told her to tell the “brethren” and did not require her to tell women, or because the other women might have been jealous and accused her delusion, even though she was emphatically NOT afraid of telling men who would’ve been more skeptical of her as a woman!<br /><br />Kingsley documents five appearances of Jesus to his disciples in the four Gospels. In order to reconcile the appearances with Paul's completely different list of six appearances in I Corinthians 15, Kingsley merely adds them together to make eleven appearances, discounting the fact that Paul never mentions any appearance of women because of cultural prejudices against them, and discounting that the four Gospels never make mention of 500 hundred people seeing Jesus at one time. <br /><br />I think Kingsley should take heed of what several Christian scholars were quoted by him (on page 200 as saying about attempting such a project. Dr. Daniel Wallace said: “No plausible solution has presented itself.” Dr. J. Lyle Story said, “I do know that it’s next to impossible to provide the sequence of events in the post-Resurrections…there’s no way that they can all be harmonized.” Dr. Donald Hagner said the problem is a “notorious” one.<br /><br />Kingsley has emphatically not harmonized the accounts by far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52099964591844431242009-04-19T16:14:00.000-04:002009-04-19T16:14:00.000-04:00Pvblivs: You are straining to insist on contradict...Pvblivs: You are straining to insist on contradiction where it cannot be proved. This is as simple previously illustrated:<br /><br />A. "Alice went to the store and left without buying anything because nothing looked good to her." <br /><br />It is easily granted that by any "reasonable interpretation" of statement A. we quite naturally conclude that Alice did not buy any food. In just the same way, by reading Mark, we would naturally conclude the women didn't tell anyone, at least not right away. But, returning to our illustration, now comes another statement to factor in:<br /><br />B. "On the way home from the store, Alice met a man with a cart selling hot bratwurst sandwiches. She bought one and ate it."<br /><br />You want to assert a reasonable interpretation--me too. In no way does the addition of statement B. to statement A. prove contradiction. But it DOES require we adjust our previously held understanding of statement A. This kind of common adjustment in our understanding as information is added together is the way reasonable people process any collection of statements, whether from one source or several. <br /><br />Obviously, as concerns the statements of what the women experienced after leaving the tomb you do not want to make this simple adjustment. You don't have to, but your bias is showing. No matter how you try to spin this, there is nothing about Mark's statement in this matter that is logically destructive to any claim found in the additional statements in Matthew or Luke.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04702388190688754917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-2018802726055876152009-04-16T17:03:00.000-04:002009-04-16T17:03:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659212150994482317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-55685686433742457132009-04-16T16:45:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:45:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659212150994482317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-67526904858477406772009-04-16T16:25:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:25:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659212150994482317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-71450320301345884292009-04-16T12:46:00.000-04:002009-04-16T12:46:00.000-04:00Stephen:
"Okay, let's grant that an...Stephen:<br /><br /> "Okay, let's grant that and agree that according to Mark's Gospel they didn't say anything to any man while they ran from the tomb."<br /> I am not agreeing to that interpretation. I have identified it as an <I>unreasonable</I> interpretation and intellectually dishonest. The fact that he says that they didn't say anything to any man (he states out of fear) rationally implies that, in the applicable time frame, they were in a position that they would otherwise have said something. Besides, if they did not reach anyone they would otherwise have told while they were afraid, then fear is not the reason they didn't tell anyone. Lack of opportunity supersedes fear as an explanation.<br /> "Flexibility isn't the issue, just intellectual honesty and simple logic."<br /> And I find that attempts to reconcile the stories require intellectual dishonesty. You are willing to use a twisted meaning so that you can insert a "fear remover." It doesn't matter. If the fear was removed before they reached the eleven and the others, the plain meaning of Mark's account is false. So, again, I reiterate. To any <I>reasonable</I> interpretation of the accounts, they are contradictory. "To any resonable interpretation, the 'said nothing' and the 'said something' claims cover the same time period -- when they first got back with their main group." If they met Jesus and lost their fear before getting back with the group, Mark's account is false. The fear never had place to be an issue over whether they spoke.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-21165317292012918362009-04-16T10:31:00.000-04:002009-04-16T10:31:00.000-04:00Okay, I read it finally. Not impressed.
All I see...Okay, I read it finally. Not impressed.<br /><br />All I see is the same convenient gerrymandering of the interpretation to produce the desired outcome. It's the same schtick that Christian apologists everywhere do every day, and it's <I>not</I> original. It's this sort of <I>ex post facto</I>, <I>ad hoc</I> explanation that annoys us so. It's because you Christians seem to think the practice of gerrymandering eisegesis is legitimate that tools like Dan will claim an English translation of a Genesis verse proves its author was inspired as to the double-helical shape of the DNA molecule.<br /><br />I'll grant that you have met the terms of Barker's "challenge," but that was never the actual goal of the challenge, and I think everyone knows it. The true challenge was to get unwitting and ignorant Christians to see that an honest "plain reading" of various biblical passages produces an apparent contradiction, or at the least scientifically inaccurate statements. The "challenge," then, was to get these Christians to think about the aspects of their religion about which many are quite unaware -- in the hopes that, in doing so, they might reconsider their reasons for joining it.<br /><br />Since there are no actual references to time, aside from the ambiguous (and exploited by you) references to "night," "dawn," and "daybreak," so a dishonest person -- that is, a person with an agenda, and a willingness to twist the storyline pretzelous in order to see that agenda realized -- can easily reconstruct the story to suit his own ends. An equally dishonest person would reconstruct the story to come to a completely <I>different</I> conclusion, too, so don't think Christian apologists are being singled out -- anyone who takes the stories here discussed and rearranges them so that they are not obviously contradictory (however implausible) is guilty of this dishonesty.<br /><br />No, the <I>honest</I> approach is to take the "plain reading," and note that it belies a harmonious account. In addition to a "plain reading," the <I>honest</I> reader will also consider any extant evidence, such that even a completely coherent account, given a "plain reading," would be rejected as contradicting the <I>evidence</I>, where appropriate.<br /><br />Of course, this is not what Christians do -- they instead <I>constantly</I> reinterpret the bible to conform to their preconceived notions, and they gerrymander any such interpretations to "fit" with the evidence available at the time.<br /><br />You know what I would love to see happen? I would love to see a body found, which appeared to be that of Jesus. Of course, the Christians would understandably deny it to be Jesus' body, but if such a thing were to happen, and DNA testing found that the body had some incomprehensibly improbable genetic structure, both sides of the argument would have to rethink their positions. That would be fun.<br /><br />In any case, history has shown, time and again, that Christians have no compunctions against "reinterpreting" the bible to "fit" new data, while simultaneously having the audacity to claim that any preceding "interpretations" which <I>don't</I> "fit" the same new data were erroneous "interpretations," and not that the bible itself is erroneous.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-75751472331467633382009-04-16T01:04:00.000-04:002009-04-16T01:04:00.000-04:00Pvblis wrote: "Their sprint would be a time in whi...Pvblis wrote: "Their sprint would be a time in which they were not in contact with any man." Okay, let's grant that and agree that according to Mark's Gospel they didn't say anything to any man while they ran from the tomb. Okay, but they did stop running. When? From there, we pick up the storyline in Matthew and discover that they did come in contact with a man, Jesus. It doesn't say they said anything to him, but it reasonable to say that by being with him they overcame their temporary sudden fear (acc. to Mark the cause of their not speaking to anyone) and from there went and told. From Luke we learn that they did indeed (that same day) go tell the disciples. <br /><br />Again, a contradiction is a logical impossibility. When the facts of these accounts of what the women experienced on Easter, after leaving the tomb, are added to one another to form a complete story, there is nothing contradictory. If so, please prove the alleged fact of any one statement destructive to an alleged fact of any other.<br /><br />Pvblivs also wrote: "If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything." Flexibility isn't the issue, just intellectual honesty and simple logic. If Mark had written, "and they *never* said nothing to anyone..." THEN, contradiction would be granted.<br /><br />Earlier the issue of Mt. 27:52 and 53 came up. Given that they're describing the resurrection of saints at the time Jesus died, these verses are in contradiction to Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15 that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead. There may be a way to explain that, but it escapes me. There are a few places in the Bible where valid contradiction exists. But here, in the resurrection accounts, there's an appearance of contradiction, but that's it. The proper test is to respect the temporal phrases, make sure you're dealing descriptions of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same respect, and see if the pieces can be reasonably added together. If they can, they are consistent. If not, they are contradictory.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36080475694957721212009-04-14T19:37:00.000-04:002009-04-14T19:37:00.000-04:00Thanks Dani'El I was just going to answer that. Th...Thanks Dani'El I was just going to answer that. Thanks for doing a better job then I envisioned.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-85239359626437026142009-04-14T19:18:00.000-04:002009-04-14T19:18:00.000-04:00Dax, the Angels are male.
Luk 1:19 And the angel ...Dax, the Angels are male.<br /><br />Luk 1:19 And the angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. <br /><br />גּבריאל<br />gabrîy'êl<br />gab-ree-ale'<br />From H1397 and H410; man of God; Gabriel, an archangel: - Gabriel.<br /><br />Gabri' El, meaning "man of God"<br /><br /><br />And even Satan, the fallen angel, when all his power is taken away, as he is chained up in the pit-<br /><br />Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! <br />Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: <br />Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. <br />Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. <br />Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;<br /><br />So the angels, being males, are called men, but not sons of Adam, but sons of God.<br /><br />Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-79131336733945377402009-04-14T19:04:00.000-04:002009-04-14T19:04:00.000-04:00John 20 v12 two angels
Luke 24 v4 two men
Just a...John 20 v12 two angels<br />Luke 24 v4 two men<br /> Just another example of having to twist the bible to fit.<br /> Were they men or angels?<br /> If they were men why doesn't the bible just say that. If they were angels,why doesn't it just say so.<br /> The ten commandments. The ones Moses smashed or the second set god gave him.<br /> (Magic Carpet Ride slides quietly into the v.short dusk in that neck of the woods (palms)Daxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03610290697422023489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45714875431784485662009-04-13T21:47:00.000-04:002009-04-13T21:47:00.000-04:00That's fair, but actually I would be interested wh...That's fair, but actually I would be interested why you would "suspect" a passage didn't belong, especially one I think got in there because of the zeal of the author of Matthew. I'm speculating that you might not be a Biblical inerrantist, which if you're not, would be refreshing.<br /><br />And my question was in was in response to one of your comments, so I think that's fair game. After all this is the blogoshpere.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-76574185058749680282009-04-13T19:50:00.000-04:002009-04-13T19:50:00.000-04:00Scary: I didn't say that Mt. 27:52,53 don't belong...Scary: I didn't say that Mt. 27:52,53 don't belong. That's a judgment beyond my pay grade. I said I *suspect* they are not original. It's subjective, my personal opinion. I'd try to explain my reasons, but its off topic and you probably would be too disinterested to read it anyway.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86024780927962646692009-04-13T17:11:00.000-04:002009-04-13T17:11:00.000-04:00Two things I get from this, it's far too long to r...Two things I get from this, it's far too long to read all the way through but I got far enough to figure out what you are doing and trying to acheive.<BR/><BR/>Two things struck me, firstly the amount of work it takes to "attempt" to reconcile these Biblical dificulties.<BR/><BR/>And your statement that don't you think Matthew 52,52 belongs in the New Testament. What makes you think it doesn't belong? And if it doesn't belong why is it there?Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-2776748709162213172009-04-13T14:39:00.000-04:002009-04-13T14:39:00.000-04:00Stephen: "Your illustration about Alice i...Stephen:<BR/><BR/> "Your illustration about Alice isn't suited to this discussion. Your two statements, A. and B. are contradictory and there's no reasonable way to undo the conflict."<BR/> Actually, that makes the illustration perfectly suited to this discussion. I agree that there is no <I>reasonable</I> way to undo the conflict. In the same manner, there is no <I>reasonable</I> way to undo the conflict between Mark and Luke. So I gave an <I>unreasonable</I> way, completely analogous to the way you are trying to resolve the conflict between Mark and Luke.<BR/> "'If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the 'said nothing to any man' only applied while they were not in contact with any man.'<BR/> "Not true. I'm applying your 'series of events' reasoning to the matter and saying the 'said nothing to any man' only applies to the moment the writer is describing, their sprint (due to fear) from the tomb."<BR/> Their sprint would be a time in which they were not in contact with any man. To any resonable interpretation, the "said nothing" and the "said something" claims cover the same time period -- when they first got back with their main group. Reinterpreting the "said nothing" to cover only the sprint and not the arrival amongst the eleven and the others is just like reinterpreting the "bought nothing" to cover only the walk up to the store and not going inside and walking down the aisles.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-73303817337178120332009-04-13T12:25:00.000-04:002009-04-13T12:25:00.000-04:00"If your willing to be flexible enough in interpre..."If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the "said nothing to any man" only applied while they were not in contact with any man."<BR/><BR/>Not true. I'm applying your "series of events" reasoning to the matter and saying the "said nothing to any man" only applies to the moment the writer is describing, their sprint (due to fear) from the tomb. Mark's point is obvious, their angelic experience in the tomb was so dramatic that they ran away, scared speechless. Not that they never told any man about what happened.<BR/><BR/>If Providence had gifted us with no Gospel but Mark, we still have to conclude they began talking at some point. You even granted they could have "days, weeks, or months later." So clearly, we're not imposing a they-never-spoke judgment on Mark. The only issue is when did they tell and to whom? Mark certainly left us hanging. But, we're not dealing with just Mark, and acc. to Barker's requirement in his Easter Challenge we're not trying to keep each account separate and read as its own complete story with whatever "plain meaning" we might each subjectively arrive at. The challenge is to bring the pieces together, if reasonably possible, by adding the data together. This is a good test to see if any claim of fact in any one account is genuinely destructive to a claim of fact in any other. <BR/><BR/>Your illustration about Alice isn't suited to this discussion. Your two statements, A. and B. are contradictory and there's no reasonable way to undo the conflict. <BR/><BR/>This would be more suited: A. "Alice went to the store and left without buying anything because nothing looked good to her." B. "On the way home from the store, Alice met a man with a cart selling hot bratwurst sandwiches. She bought one and ate it." <BR/><BR/>Taken alone at face value we would naturally conclude Alice returned home from the store without buying any food. But, with the addition of B we know more, adjust our initial understanding of A, and move on wishing we too had a hot bratwurst sandwich.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61307350485456691642009-04-13T04:27:00.000-04:002009-04-13T04:27:00.000-04:00Stephen: If your willing to be flexible enough...Stephen:<BR/><BR/> If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the "said nothing to any man" only applied while they were not in contact with any man. The claim of "because they were afraid" is then superfluous. I submit that someone unfamiliar with christianity, presented with those accounts (possibly as a fictional tale) and asked if they were consistent, would rule that they were not. I submit further that your reinterpretation (to assert that there is no logical impossibility) is not reasonable. I have stated what a plain reading of each text would imply. It is logically impossible for both plain readings to be accurate. Those do conflict.<BR/> I am going to try to illustrate the idea. Let's say we have two accounts of Alice's trip to the store. Account 1: "Alice went to the store without buying anything." Account 2: "Alice went to the store and bought a loaf of bread." Now, when faced with the prospect of reconciling the two accounts as consistent representations of the <I>same</I> trip to the store, you could claim that "without buying anything" only applies to the span up until entering the store and that going down the aisles is a "game changer." After all, the account doesn't <I>explicitly</I> say that she left without buying anything. But that is not a plain reading. To a plain reading, stating that they said nothing carries the implication that they encountered people that they would otherwise have told, but did not (Mark says out of fear.) Luke's account (plainly read) is that they told the people that they would normally be expected to tell as soon as they encountered them.<BR/> It is not reasonable to claim that Mark's account doen not cover actually returning to their larger group.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36652390460763411532009-04-13T02:40:00.000-04:002009-04-13T02:40:00.000-04:00Pvblivs: "In Mark the report states that they didn...Pvblivs: "In Mark the report states that they didn't say anything to any man. This would be during the series of events." This is good reasoning on your part, up to this point anyway. The series of events includes their experience in the tomb, and their not saying anything relates to the event at hand and the action being described: their running from the tomb. They didn't run for hours (of course). Acc. to Matt they stopped when they saw Jesus. "The series" Mark is recording doesn't go beyond the action he describes here (their fleeing the tomb). Nothing from the other accounts proves anything Mark says false. It's reasonable to allow that seeing Jesus was a game changer. From the place the saw him, they went on and told that same day just as Luke records. Again, contradiction requires the proof of a logical impossibility. You're certainly not proving any thing impossible here.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-26300178254374478672009-04-13T01:27:00.000-04:002009-04-13T01:27:00.000-04:00Flute's question, what about the saints seen wande...<I>Flute's question, what about the saints seen wandering around ...? Matthew 27:52 and 53 are odd for several reasons. But Flute knows that, hence the question. I wouldn't be the first to suspect the verses were not original even though it's difficult to prove.</I><BR/>That's why evolutionary biologists and other physical scientists have a hard time accepting genesis, I suspect.<BR/><BR/>No evidence for, and (in the case of evolution and the age of the earth) too much evidence against such wild claims.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29684040360940045172009-04-13T00:54:00.000-04:002009-04-13T00:54:00.000-04:00Stephen: Not so simple. Both accounts report ...Stephen:<BR/><BR/> Not so simple. Both accounts report a series of events. In Mark the report states that they didn't say anything to any man. This would be during the series of events. It does not rule out saying something days, weeks, or months later. In Luke, they tell everyone upon their return (if you take a plain reading.) If Luke's account is correct, Mark's is false. As near as I can tell, you are trying to imply that their fear left as soon as they got back and so they told the eleven right away. But then the reason for not speaking is moot because the "told no man" claim is false. Essentially, if they tell people right away (i.e. when they get back from the tomb) Mark is false outright. If they do not, the meaning of Luke is strained at best. The indication of a gap in events is missing.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82743647510719492762009-04-12T23:54:00.000-04:002009-04-12T23:54:00.000-04:00Flute's question, what about the saints seen wande...Flute's question, what about the saints seen wandering around ...? Matthew 27:52 and 53 are odd for several reasons. But Flute knows that, hence the question. I wouldn't be the first to suspect the verses were not original even though it's difficult to prove. If it's of any comfort to you, I've never chosen these two verses as my text for Sunday morning. Anyway, if we're dealing with the resurrection accounts, Barker's EC is limited to a set of specific verses; in Matthew beginning at 28:1.<BR/><BR/>As for my comment "Jesus appeared to the disciples on the afternoon of Easter, something no critic disputes." I'm not referring to the claim of historicity, but what the text says. Does anyone dispute that by reading Luke that the resurrection appearance of Jesus beginning in 24:36 is recorded to have happened on the afternoon of Easter?<BR/><BR/>In this case, we're dealing with whether the accounts are consistent, not whether the alleged events happened. I believe they're real history, but that's beside the point. Even if the supernatural things are taken as fictional, it's yet possible to fairly judge whether the actual words used by the writers agree.<BR/><BR/>One more thing. The tax man cometh or his day anyway. I'm not going to have time to wrangle with too much here this week. So, be patient with me. Thanks for all the comments.Stephen Kingsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09307357926375262115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41493054155028827042009-04-12T23:22:00.000-04:002009-04-12T23:22:00.000-04:00Looks like Mariano is taken with Stephen as well.....Looks like Mariano is taken <A HREF="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/guest-blogger-answering-easter.html" REL="nofollow">with Stephen as well</A>...Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.com