Contrived Gospel stories [Archive]

stevencarrwork

January 30th 2003, 03:45 AM

I see Mr. Holding cannot tell us who the angel spoke to. And he cannot find one commentator who can tell us who the women were in Matthew 28:5 that the angel spoke to. Not one!

Certainly, his contrived method of exegesis has destroyed the Bible as a source of information.

Take the following statements :-

' I spoke to Shania Twain and Celine Dion at the Superbowl. I asked the women to sing well. They said that they would.'

According to Mr. Holding's contrived rules of Biblical interpretation, he would claim that we cannot tell who I asked to sing well, and who said that they would sing well, as there were lots of women at the Superbowl, and there are accounts of other women singing.

I find his reasoning very contrived.

Most people's reasoning would not be so contrived, and they would manage to work out that I had spoken to Shania Twain (chance would be a fine thing) and Celine Dion. But then a majority of people do not think like Mr. Holding (who has web articles claiming that a majority of the world is Chinese, although a majority of the world is not Chinese.)

But, I'm sure Mr. Holding will come up with a link to an article, with another contrived explanation.

Just as he will come up with a contrived justification of how the fact that about 25% of the world's population is Chinese, enables him to have web articles saying that a majority of the world is Chinese.

Dan Barker has an Easter Challenge 'My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.'

Mr. Holding fails this challenge miserably. He cannot even tell us who was told this rather important information in Matthew 28:5-9.

In Matthew 28:9, Jesus speaks to the disciples, but as Mr. Holding points out 'McTill recently said in his own carbon-monoxide ringed face, does he assume that only the disciples John names were the only ones Jesus had?!? What planet has he been on?)'

Does Mr. Holding assume that the only disciples Jesus had were the ones Matthew names? What planet has he been on?

So Mr. Holding cannot even tell us which disciples Jesus spoke to.

Is his belief really based on contrived accounts like Matthew's Gospel which are so shoddy that, even after years to devoted study, Mr. Holding cannot even tell us who Matthew is referring to as supposed eyewitnesses?

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 03:47 AM

I was almost compelled by your response, but the bottom line is, you just didn't use the term 'contrived' enough.

stevencarrwork

January 30th 2003, 03:55 AM

I should point out that in his article on Mary Magdalene, where Mr. Holding writes ''McTill recently said in his own carbon-monoxide ringed face, does he assume that only the disciples John names were the only ones Jesus had?!? What planet has he been on?)' at http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html

was in response to Till asking who the 'we' was in John 3:11 that Jesus was referring to

Till asked 'Was Jesus including his disciples with his usage of we here?'

Till said it was not likely to be the disciples, and Mr. Holding then said that Jesus had lots of disciples.

But Mr. Holding never actually answers the question of who Jesus was referring to in John 3:11, when he used 'we'.

Here is his big chance. Was Till right to say that the 'we' in John 3:11 does not refer to the disciples?

stevencarrwork

January 30th 2003, 03:59 AM

Hamster writes 'I was almost compelled by your response, but the bottom line is, you just didn't use the term 'contrived' enough.'

I thought the consensus was that I might need some practice in using the word :-)

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 04:05 AM

As long as we're going to play this equivocation thing with the term "contrived", would you say that your posts lack spontaneity in nature? Are they clever? Were they written with an agenda in mind?

Because that would make everything you've written to us so far fall under the definition of contrived (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contrived)

smilax

January 30th 2003, 04:18 AM

Stevie, name one ethnic group that has more people in it than the Chinese.

stevencarrwork

January 30th 2003, 05:14 AM

Smilax writes 'Stevie, name one ethnic group that has more people in it than the Chinese.'

Ah, another person who claims the following statements are both true

1 A majority of the world is non-Chinese.
2 A majority of the world is Chinese.

My money is on number 1 being true.

And you will find virtually nobody other than Mr. (A majority of the world is Chinese) Holding who claims both statements are true.

There is no bigger ethnic group than the Chinese. The Chinese are not a majority of the world, no matter how contrived your explanations are.

Hamster also believes the following statements are both true.

1) Contrived is a word with good connotations.
2) Sceptics are insulting Mr. Holding by saying that his explanations are contrived.

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 05:21 AM

Hamster also believes the following statements are both true.

1) Contrived is a word with good connotations.

Hamster believes:

1. Contrived is a word with a wide range of usage. It can be used in a way to have negative connotations, but not nescessarily.

E.g.: To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.

2. Mr. Carr is taking advantage of the fact that "contrived" can be used to insult a thing or person. This would be like saying

Would you say the vacuum you invented sucks?

By the way -- could you produce the statement by J.P. in which he said whatever it is you're accusing him of saying about the Chinese?

smilax

January 30th 2003, 05:29 AM

stevencarrwork:
1 A majority of the world is non-Chinese.
2 A majority of the world is Chinese.

My money is on number 1 being true.What to do, what to do...? Oh! False dilemma, because we're comparing ethnic groups, not the Chinese and the non-Chinese. Bzzt, try again.

Example: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, definition four: "The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all other aggregates with which it is contrasted."

smilax believes the following:

1. Words can have multiple meanings and connotations.
2. False equivocation is a yawn-inducingly lame tactic.

dizzle

January 30th 2003, 05:38 AM

Hey guys... I am going to be moving this thread to the Apologetics area as it really is not a Christological subject. Thanks!

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 05:39 AM

Sounds Logical, Ms Warren

;)

Lizard

January 30th 2003, 09:29 AM

stevencarrwork:
It appears Faramir agrees with me (and Mr. Holding) that Gospel stories were contrived, and he appears unable to tell me who Matthew was referring to in Matthew 28:5.

I agree with Mr. Holding's use of the word contrived as it related to the Gospel stories. I do not agree with your misuse of Mr. Holding's statement. Your deficiency in the area of reading comprehension continues to amaze me.

You are also correct that I am unable to tell you who Matthew was referring to in Matthew 28:5. I (and several others) have stated that in the time and culture that it was written in, the issue who exactly the women were would not be important.

What you have been unable to do Stevie is to show why it is so important to know exactly who Matthew is referring to. You seem so sure that you know. Please tell me, I would like to know.

However, due to your proven ability (or lack thereof) in the area of reading comprehension, I don't expect to be very enlightened by your answer.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 12:15 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Steve, instead of making your arguments elsewhere and then posting them here, I would ask that you fully develop them here.

I too have addressed this same issue in a post <http://theskepticalreview.com/jftill/mary/problem.html> that was directed at Turkel's article "Tomb Visitor Checklist,"<(http://www.tektonics.org/whoattomb.html)>, which attempted to show that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives concerning what women went to the tomb on resurrection morning. Turkel evaded my primary argument in his reply at <http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html>. However, the article did have the effect of causing Turkel to remove his original article from his website.

Gray Pilgrim would like for us to post our full arguments here, and I agree with this request. Debating by listing URLs and book titles, in my opinion, is ineffective, because not many in the audience will take the time to look up these sources. I cited the URLs above only for the benefit of those who may want to review the background of the particular argument that I will post below.

In this forum, I intend to limit my posts to the statement and support of only one argument so that those who undertake to reply to it will have less room to wiggle around. If any take offense at that statement, I assure you that it was based on a long career of having publicly debated biblical inerrantists. Trying to pin them down is usually as difficult as trying to nail the proverbial Jello to the wall.

Argument: The Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "Matthew" is incompatibly inconsistent with the Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "John"

Support for this argument: Diehard inerrantists claim that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, but to find "harmony" in the various NT passages that refer to the resurrection, they must resort to outrageous speculation and how-it-could-have-been scenarios. The most troublesome inconsistency in the resurrection accounts is what I call the Mary Magdalene problem. It has sent many would-be apologists scurrying for cover with announcements that they have so many obligations and responsibilities that they must regrettably leave whatever forum I was in at the time. When confronted with the Mary Magdalene problem, some don't even bother to offer excuses; they just leave whatever forum they are in.

The Mary Magdalene problem is simple. Mary M was presented in the synoptic gospels as having seen an angel or angels at the tomb, and heard him or them announce the resurrection of Jesus, after which she actually encountered Jesus and worshiped him as she was running from the tomb to tell the disciples what had happened. In John's gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to Peter and the disciple "whom Jesus loved" and told them that the body had been stolen. So the problem is why Mary M would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.

To save time, I am going to post a rebuttal of the most commonly used "explanation" of this problem so that we can get to the heart of it much quicker. (Readers who have been with me on alt.bible.errancy and the ii_errancy list will recognize that this is an adapted version of a posting that I have sent to Errancy many times, but no one has yet given a sensible explanation of the problem.) Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account, whose grammatical structure requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present throughout the angel's announcement of the resurrection and the subsequent encounter with the risen Jesus. Let's look at the narrative first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary[b/] came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to [b]the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And 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. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

I have emphasized in bold print certain words to call attention to them. They will establish that Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene didn't just hear the angel announce that Jesus had been raised from the dead but that she also saw him and touched him after she had run from the tomb. To establish this, let's notice that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only two women mentioned in Matthew's version. The fact that Mark and Luke may have mentioned other women has nothing to do with the obvious fact that Matthew mentioned only two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Therefore, "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene; otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent and would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians, who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account. I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Besides this, there are linguistic factors that inerrantists must consider. All rules of literary interpretation that I ever heard of (and I studied a lot of literature on the subject during my career as a college English teacher) would require readers to understand that "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 of Matthew's text were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. No other assumptions can be made, since Matthew did not himself specify that any other women were with the two Marys. In other words, whether Mark and Luke mentioned up to three other women or 300 other women is immaterial to what Matthew's narrative said. If he mentioned only two women, then "the women" in his narrative grammatically had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Hence, any plural pronouns like "they" and "them" that obviously referred back to "the women" had to be references to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. By necessity, then, the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that whatever "they" did in this narrative or whatever happened to or was said to "them" were things done by or to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement will, therefore, require readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them (emphasized above in bold print) is "THE WOMEN." Since "THE WOMEN" by grammatical necessity had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the antecedents of they and them are indirectly (by necessity) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

It is a rule of literary interpretation that the substitution of antecedents for the pronouns in a text will not alter the meaning of the text but will, if anything, help clarify its meaning. With that in mind, I will now take Matthew's text quoted above and present it with the antecedents substituted for the pronouns they and them when they made obvious references to "the women." Readers should keep in mind that where Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (in bold print) appear, the pronouns they or them appeared in the actual text.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, “Rejoice!” So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

It is clearly evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this and that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb. So my question to Turkel and his inerrantist cohorts who think that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives is a simple one: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Some inerrantists use the two-visits theory to explain the inconsistencies in Mathew’s and John’s narratives. They argue that John’s narrative told of a first visit that Mary M made to the tomb while it was yet dark, at which time she encountered an empty tomb and ran to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, whereas the synoptic narratives told of a second visit that Mary M made to the tomb “when the sun was risen.” Will inerrantists in this forum resort to the two-visits "explanation"?

I hope so.

Ishmael

January 30th 2003, 12:19 PM

This is a good source for Skeptics and Christian Apologists so they can know that the pot shots skeptics take at the text are many. Some of their "bullets" have merit but most are just crude interpretations which amount to a grasping at straws.
Skeptic Annoitated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 12:45 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Could you be a bit more expansive in what you are looking for? If you are trying to make a point with this, could you please state it?

I understand exactly what Carr is looking for, so maybe my post will answer GrayPilgrim's questions. If this message appears twice, I apologize, but I posted it once but couldn't find it when I returned. I had a devil of a time limiting it to 12,000 characters.

GrayPilgrim:
Steve, instead of making your arguments elsewhere and then posting them here, I would ask that you fully develop them here

I too have addressed this same issue in a post <http://theskepticalreview.com/jftill/mary/problem.html> that was directed at Turkel's article "Tomb Visitor Checklist,"<(http://www.tektonics.org/whoattomb.html)>, which attempted to show that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives concerning what women went to the tomb on resurrection morning. Turkel, in typical fashion evaded my primary argument in his reply at <http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html>. However, the article did have the effect of causing Turkel to remove his original article from his website.

Gray Pilgrim would like for us to post our full arguments here, and I agree with this request. Debating by listing URLs and book titles, in my opinion, is ineffective, because not many in the audience will take the time to look up these sources. I cited the URLs above only for the benefit of those who may want to review the background of the particular argument that I will post below.

In this forum, I intend to limit my posts to the statement and support of only one argument so that those who undertake to reply to it will have less room to wiggle around. If any take offense at that statement, I assure you that it was based on a long career of having publicly debated biblical inerrantists. Trying to pin them down is usually as difficult as trying to nail the proverbial Jello to the wall.

Argument: The Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "Matthew" is incompatibly inconsistent with the Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "John."

Support for this argument: Diehard inerrantists claim that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, but to find "harmony" in the various NT passages that refer to the resurrection, they must resort to outrageous speculation and how-it-could-have-been scenarios. The most troublesome inconsistency in the resurrection accounts is what I call the Mary Magdalene problem.

The Mary Magdalene problem is simple. Mary M was presented in the synoptic gospels as having seen an angel or angels at the tomb, and heard him or them announce the resurrection of Jesus, after which she actually encountered Jesus and worshiped him as she was running from the tomb to tell the disciples what had happened. In John's gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to Peter and the disciple "whom Jesus loved" and told them that the body had been stolen. So the problem is why Mary M would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.

To save time, I am going to post a rebuttal of the most commonly used "explanation" of this problem so that we can get to the heart of it much quicker. (Readers who have been with me on alt.bible.errancy and the ii_errancy list will recognize that this is an adapted version of a posting that I have sent to Errancy many times, but no one has yet given a sensible explanation of the problem.) Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account, whose grammatical structure requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present throughout the angel's announcement of the resurrection and the subsequent encounter with the risen Jesus. Let's look at the narrative first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And 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. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

I have emphasized in bold print certain words to call attention to them. They will establish that Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene didn't just hear the angel announce that Jesus had been raised from the dead but that she also saw him and touched him after she had run from the tomb. To establish this, let's notice that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only two women mentioned in Matthew's version. The fact that Mark and Luke may have mentioned other women has nothing to do with the obvious fact that Matthew mentioned only two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Therefore, "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene; otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent and would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians, who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account. I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Besides this, there are linguistic factors that inerrantists must consider. All rules of literary interpretation that I ever heard of (and I studied a lot of literature on the subject during my career as a college English teacher) would require readers to understand that "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 of Matthew's text were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. No other assumptions can be made, since Matthew did not himself specify that any other women were with the two Marys. In other words, whether Mark and Luke mentioned up to three other women or 300 other women is immaterial to what Matthew's narrative said. If he mentioned only two women, then "the women" in his narrative grammatically had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Hence, any plural pronouns like "they" and "them" that obviously referred back to "the women" had to be references to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. By necessity, then, the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that whatever "they" did in this narrative or whatever happened to or was said to "them" were things done by or to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement will, therefore, require readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them (emphasized above in bold print) is "THE WOMEN." Since "THE WOMEN" by grammatical necessity had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the antecedents of they and them are indirectly (by necessity) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

It is a rule of literary interpretation that the substitution of antecedents for the pronouns in a text will not alter the meaning of the text but will, if anything, help clarify its meaning. With that in mind, I will now take Matthew's text quoted above and present it with the antecedents substituted for the pronouns they and them when they made obvious references to "the women." Readers should keep in mind that where Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (in bold print) appear, the pronouns they or them appeared in the actual text.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, “Rejoice!” So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

It is clearly evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this and that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb. So my question to Turkel and his inerrantist cohorts who think that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives is a simple one: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Some inerrantists use the two-visits theory to explain the inconsistencies in Mathew’s and John’s narratives. They argue that John’s narrative told of a first visit that Mary M made to the tomb while it was yet dark, at which time she encountered an empty tomb and ran to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, whereas the synoptic narratives told of a second visit that Mary M made to the tomb “when the sun was risen. Will inerrantist in this forum resort to the two-visits "explanation"?

I hope so.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 12:50 PM

John and Matthew have two different Mary's from Magdalene.

In Greek, John has:

MIRIA

and Matthew has:

MARIAM

If you know your Greek, you'll notice they are TWO DIFFERENT NAMES! Miriam vs. Mary. Also, MIRIAM reappears a few verses later in John.

For that matter, it shows you have the assumption that Matt 28:8 is lying, that they did NOT run back to the disciples first.

John says they did, and Matthew just skips them talking to the 12 the first time.

The fun part about this is we know the action of running and telling the disciples was completed because it is in the aorist tense, meaning the action is completed. If it was imperfect, then it would mean Jesus interrupted them on their way, but it is in fact not imperfect.

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 01:11 PM

My but this has moved.

I may disagree with Jaltus but I certainly can live with it. Stevie is of the sort who thinks we all have to agree 100% or else and won't "get" that. I'm asking meanwhile, is he going to marry Acharya S?

Now as to our crusty English muffin:

I see Mr. Holding cannot tell us who the angel spoke to. And he cannot find one commentator who can tell us who the women were in Matthew 28:5 that the angel spoke to. Not one!

Oh heck. I just read Keener off and that means "not one". I don't suspect I'll find one that cares, either, for the reasons already stated, but ya'll see how Stevie blows it all out his ears to make it into federal case city. Beyond that you can't tell what the sources don't say. But federal case 2:

Certainly, his contrived method of exegesis has destroyed the Bible as a source of information.

Ah. So one point in Matthew disproves the veracity of, um, Luke. Or Kings. Or...is there a cuckoo clock pic I can put here?

' I spoke to Shania Twain and Celine Dion at the Superbowl. I asked the women to sing well. They said that they would.'

According to Mr. Holding's contrived rules of Biblical interpretation, he would claim that we cannot tell who I asked to sing well, and who said that they would sing well, as there were lots of women at the Superbowl, and there are accounts of other women singing.

Uh oh, it's that decontextualization impairment again:

1) Once again -- we are pedantic Western literalists. Not ancients for whom such details are of little relevance compared to the core message.

2) Once again -- we aren't limited by practical considerations in what we can report.

I find his reasoning very contrived.

You would, because you are grossly decontextualized and reading the text like the Sunday Times. Same problem you had with guilt and shame in the ancient world and reading the NIV in English to prove the ancients had individual consciences. Keep running in circles around that sun dog, Stevie.

But, I'm sure Mr. Holding will come up with a link to an article, with another contrived explanation.

I.e., a contextualized one for the temporal provincialists here. Of course. :D

Just as he will come up with a contrived justification of how the fact that about 25% of the world's population is Chinese, enables him to have web articles saying that a majority of the world is Chinese.

Oh my...smilax, do spank him hard. Smilax, Hamster: He apparently is not aware of who actually wrote that statement for my article...is he? ;) He still thinks it's ME.

Dan Barker has an Easter Challenge 'My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.'

Dan Barker is as much of a decontextualized pigeon as Stevie is. :rofl: He may as well cite himself. What do you think of Barker asking for money, Stevie? If John bails on my challenge, you want to take his place?

Mr. Holding fails this challenge miserably. He cannot even tell us who was told this rather important information in Matthew 28:5-9.

Important to who and how and why? Are you forgetting that the Gospels were NOT evangelistic documents and that the securest testimony would rest upon the oral witness of the Apostles and other witnesses to the resurrected Jesus? You graphocentrist you.

Does Mr. Holding assume that the only disciples Jesus had were the ones Matthew names?

No. What's your point?

Is his belief really based on contrived accounts like Matthew's Gospel which are so shoddy that, even after years to devoted study, Mr. Holding cannot even tell us who Matthew is referring to as supposed eyewitnesses?

Shoddy? There's that graphocentric bigotry, yet again! :rofl: Get a clue from Baker Street, will ya?

But Mr. Holding never actually answers the question of who Jesus was referring to in John 3:11, when he used 'we'.

Who cares? No answer can be squeezed from silence and it doesn't matter.

This is fun. :D

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 01:13 PM

Meanwhile, John flushes in, avoiding my debate challenge like the plague... :rofl:

[Holding] evaded my primary argument in his reply at <<http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html>>.

Fantasy Island, anyone? I didn't evade dip, John. I crushed your pedantic fundaliteralism to powder. Your primary argument is mind-numbingly irrelevant and I showed it was.

However, the article did have the effect of causing [Holding] to remove his original article from his website.

Take credit for building the Great Wall of China while you're at it. It was removed not because your ego burped, but because it was superseded by http://www.tektonics.org/rezrvw.html where I chose to combine several arguments -- I also modified one other article that was superseded by that. This guy, folks, lies about his achievements, lies about others, and does it without a moment of hesitation.

Debating by listing URLs and book titles, in my opinion, is ineffective, because not many in the audience will take the time to look up these sources.

But they...will take time...to read all that stuff?!? I need that cuckoo graphic again...

It's all answered by the tillmagged link above. John is behind the times as usual and shouting at empty caves.

Meanwhile, John, how about that debate over ostriches and donations? When's part 17 coming out on the Land Promise? How about your replies on men with David, tarrying in the city, guilt in the ancient world, Abiathar, etc? Just keep buying new cars. It'll impress the fans.

Jaltus, don't confuse the poor man with Greek. :rofl: He thinks "aorist" is something you spray under your arm. I'd appreciate a PM from you with your thoughts on how I could present this as an alternate explanation (understandable for a lay reader) in one of my articles. I can live with either explanation of course. We're not as KJV Onlyist as Stevie thinks, now, are we?

Lizard

January 30th 2003, 02:01 PM

Farrell Till:

Argument: The Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "Matthew" is incompatibly inconsistent with the Mary Magdalene depicted in the gospel of "John."

Support for this argument: Diehard inerrantists claim that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, but to find "harmony" in the various NT passages that refer to the resurrection, they must resort to outrageous speculation and how-it-could-have-been scenarios. The most troublesome inconsistency in the resurrection accounts is what I call the Mary Magdalene problem.

The Mary Magdalene problem is simple. Mary M was presented in the synoptic gospels as having seen an angel or angels at the tomb, and heard him or them announce the resurrection of Jesus, after which she actually encountered Jesus and worshiped him as she was running from the tomb to tell the disciples what had happened. In John's gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to Peter and the disciple "whom Jesus loved" and told them that the body had been stolen. So the problem is why Mary M would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.

To save time, I am going to post a rebuttal of the most commonly used "explanation" of this problem so that we can get to the heart of it much quicker. (Readers who have been with me on alt.bible.errancy and the ii_errancy list will recognize that this is an adapted version of a posting that I have sent to Errancy many times, but no one has yet given a sensible explanation of the problem.) Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account, whose grammatical structure requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present throughout the angel's announcement of the resurrection and the subsequent encounter with the risen Jesus.

Wow Dr. Till I see what you mean. A woman in deep grief goes to prepare a man for burial. A man she believed was the promised Messiah for her people. A man who was violently executed by the local authorities and whose followers just might be next. Of course she was frightened, of course she was confused. But when she sees and angle where she thought a dead man should be, she should have had the emotional wherewithal to fully comprehend what the angle said, even though it was contrary to what she was expecting. She then should have been expected to calmly and rationally go back and relay exactly what the angle said, she had no reason to panic, no reason to be confused, and no reason to be afraid. Wow I am convinced. :no:

Farrell Till:
Let's look at the narrative first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And 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. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

I have emphasized in bold print certain words to call attention to them. They will establish that Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene didn't just hear the angel announce that Jesus had been raised from the dead but that she also saw him and touched him after she had run from the tomb. To establish this, let's notice that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only two women mentioned in Matthew's version. The fact that Mark and Luke may have mentioned other women has nothing to do with the obvious fact that Matthew mentioned only two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Therefore, "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene; otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent and would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians, who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account. I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Besides this, there are linguistic factors that inerrantists must consider. All rules of literary interpretation that I ever heard of (and I studied a lot of literature on the subject during my career as a college English teacher) would require readers to understand that "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 of Matthew's text were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. No other assumptions can be made, since Matthew did not himself specify that any other women were with the two Marys. In other words, whether Mark and Luke mentioned up to three other women or 300 other women is immaterial to what Matthew's narrative said. If he mentioned only two women, then "the women" in his narrative grammatically had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Hence, any plural pronouns like "they" and "them" that obviously referred back to "the women" had to be references to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. By necessity, then, the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that whatever "they" did in this narrative or whatever happened to or was said to "them" were things done by or to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement will, therefore, require readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them (emphasized above in bold print) is "THE WOMEN." Since "THE WOMEN" by grammatical necessity had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the antecedents of they and them are indirectly (by necessity) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

It is a rule of literary interpretation that the substitution of antecedents for the pronouns in a text will not alter the meaning of the text but will, if anything, help clarify its meaning. With that in mind, I will now take Matthew's text quoted above and present it with the antecedents substituted for the pronouns they and them when they made obvious references to "the women." Readers should keep in mind that where Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (in bold print) appear, the pronouns they or them appeared in the actual text.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, “Rejoice!” So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

It is clearly evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this and that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb. So my question to Turkel and his inerrantist cohorts who think that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives is a simple one: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Wow Dr. Till once again you amaze me. Since you teach English and the Gospels were written in English, your analysis must be correct. Oh, silly me the Gospels were written in Greek. I thought you knew that. Now if Jaltus had made that analysis based on the Greek text, I might have to take it seriously. Not only were the Gospels written in Greek, but they were written nearly 2000 years ago in a culture that was radically different from our own, English speaking culture. I assumed you knew this, because you quote Mr. Holding’s article where he clearly states this, but for some reason you fail to mention it. :huh:

Farrell Till:
Some inerrantists use the two-visits theory to explain the inconsistencies in Mathew’s and John’s narratives. They argue that John’s narrative told of a first visit that Mary M made to the tomb while it was yet dark, at which time she encountered an empty tomb and ran to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, whereas the synoptic narratives told of a second visit that Mary M made to the tomb “when the sun was risen. Will inerrantist in this forum resort to the two-visits "explanation"?

I hope so.

I am not very familiar with the two visits theory. I would love to hear why you think your "fundamental atheist” reading that you give these texts is so much better that the two visits theory.
:D

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 02:28 PM

Jaltus:
John and Matthew have two different Mary's from Magdalene.

In Greek, John has:

MIRIA

and Matthew has:

MARIAM

If you know your Greek, you'll notice they are TWO DIFFERENT NAMES! Miriam vs. Mary. Also, MIRIAM reappears a few verses later in John.

I don't know what Greek text you are using, but mine has "Maria he Magdalene" in both Matthew and throughout John's account. There are variations in Greek texts, so let's assume that you have a version that uses Miriam in Matthew. Is it your contention that the "Maria he Magdalene" of John 20:1 was not the "Maria he Magdalene" of Matthew 28:1. If so, I don't think you will find much agreement even in this biased forum. The fact that "Magdalene" is used in both texts to identify her should have been a tip-off, Jaltus.

For that matter, it shows you have the assumption that Matt 28:8 is lying, that they did NOT run back to the disciples first.

Well, of course, you should understand that I see no reason to think that this tale about a dead man who returned to life even happened, so I see no reason to think that the events claimed here are historically accurate . However, that is all beside the point. I'm simply presenting an argument based on what the text of "Matthew" said. If you believe that "Matthew" was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity called the "Holy Spirit," then you surely believe that what "Matthew" wrote was historically accurate. My argument is simply that what "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene did on this morning is irreconcilably inconsistent with what "John" claimed that this same person did.

Matthew said that Mary Magdalene saw an angel, heard the angel say that Jesus had risen, and heard the angel tell her to go tell the disciples that Jesus would go before them to Galilee.

Now do you agree that is what "Matthew" said happened? Whether it did happen or not is irrelevant. My argument is concerned only with what "Matthew" said had happened, because I am simply showing that biblical records of the same alleged events, whether historical or not, are inconsistent.

Furthermore, "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene ran from the tomb with great joy, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him. Do you agree that "Matthew" said that this happened?

If so, you must explain why this same Mary Magdalene ran and told Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved that the body of Jesus had been stolen. Why would someone who had seen Jesus and touched him have said this? That's the problem that you must solve in order to have consistency in the resurrection narratives.

If you are claiming that "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples before the angel had announced the resurrection, I would like you to cite the textual evidence in "Matthew" that supports this claim. You will find tht I will call my opponents' to task if they try to argue by assertion, question begging, and special pleading.

John says they did, and Matthew just skips them talking to the 12 the first time.

See my comment above. This is argument by assertion. You must find evidence in the text to support this, and as I will soon show, you won't be able to find it.

The fun part about this is we know the action of running and telling the disciples was completed because it is in the aorist tense, meaning the action is completed. If it was imperfect, then it would mean Jesus interrupted them on their way, but it is in fact not imperfect.

Oh, please, Jaltus, not the "aorist" quibble! It's been 50 years since my last Greek class, but I remember that the aorist tense denoted a past action without indicating whether the action was completed, continued, or repeated. I suggest that you get a grammar book and do a bit of reviewing. Perhaps the quotation from Greek Internet Grammar <http://people.uleth.ca/~robinson/aorist.html> will help clarify your misconception that the Greek aorist always denoted completed action. Emphasis has been added.

The aorist is the simple past tense. The term "aorist" comes from the Greek, meaning "undefined" or "not specified." It is the tense used when one wishes to express the type of action as mere occurrence, without reference to completion (perfect) or to duration or repetition or attempt.

That does not mean that the aorist is the opposite of the perfect or the imperfect; it simply means that those matters are not specified. More often than not, it will be the case that simple action is meant, and grammarians usually speak of this as "point" action--action that occurs in an instant, and is over.

Still not convinced? Well, check this explanation of the aorist, which can be found at the reference book section of Zondervan's website <http://www.zondervan.com/reference/expand.htm>.

Misinformation that has been repeated so often that it is considered a fact, such as, for example, the oft-heard claim that the Greek aorist tense represents once-and-for-all action ("Offer your bodies once and for all as living sacrifices"—Rom. 12:1)—it doesn't. Instead, the aorist tense represents simple, undefined action.

I find it rather amusing that you accused me of saying that "Matthew" had lied, because you are now trying to argue that Matthew was not truthful when he said that Mary Magdalene ran from the tomb, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him. Now even if your "aorist" quibble would work--and the reference information quoted above shows that it won't--the text of Matthew still says that Mary ran from the tomb and "met Jesus." Hence, Mary had met Jesus while running from the tomb, so why did she tell Peter that the body of Jesus, whom she had met and touched, had been stolen?

Furthermore, the text of Matthew says that "they [Mary Magdalene and the other Mary] departed quickly from the tomb... and ran to bring his disciples word" (v:8). Then verse 9 says that "Jesus met them." If Jesus "met" them, then they encountered Jesus before they had found the disciples. If not, why not?

I'm sorry, Jaltus, but your quibbles won't work.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 02:45 PM

Farrell Till:
I don't know what Greek text you are using, but mine has "Maria he Magdalene" in both Matthew and throughout John's account. There are variations in Greek texts, so let's assume that you have a version that uses Miriam in Matthew. Is it your contention that the "Maria he Magdalene" of John 20:1 was not the "Maria he Magdalene" of Matthew 28:1. If so, I don't think you will find much agreement even in this biased forum. The fact that "Magdalene" is used in both texts to identify her should have been a tip-off, Jaltus.

Well, of course, you should understand that I see no reason to think that this tale about a dead man who returned to life even happened, so I see no reason to think that the events claimed here are historically accurate . However, that is all beside the point. I'm simply presenting an argument based on what the text of "Matthew" said. If you believe that "Matthew" was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity called the "Holy Spirit," then you surely believe that what "Matthew" wrote was historically accurate. My argument is simply that what "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene did on this morning is irreconcilably inconsistent with what "John" claimed that this same person did.

Matthew said that Mary Magdalene saw an angel, heard the angel say that Jesus had risen, and heard the angel tell her to go tell the disciples that Jesus would go before them to Galilee.

Now do you agree that is what "Matthew" said happened? Whether it did happen or not is irrelevant. My argument is concerned only with what "Matthew" said had happened, because I am simply showing that biblical records of the same alleged events, whether historical or not, are inconsistent.

Furthermore, "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene ran from the tomb with great joy, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him. Do you agree that "Matthew" said that this happened?

If so, you must explain why this same Mary Magdalene ran and told Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved that the body of Jesus had been stolen. Why would someone who had seen Jesus and touched him have said this? That's the problem that you must solve in order to have consistency in the resurrection narratives.

If you are claiming that "Matthew" said that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples before the angel had announced the resurrection, I would like you to cite the textual evidence in "Matthew" that supports this claim. You will find tht I will call my opponents' to task if they try to argue by assertion, question begging, and special pleading.

See my comment above. This is argument by assertion. You must find evidence in the text to support this, and as I will soon show, you won't be able to find it.

Oh, please, Jaltus, not the "aorist" quibble! It's been 50 years since my last Greek class, but I remember that the aorist tense denoted a past action without indicating whether the action was completed, continued, or repeated. I suggest that you get a grammar book and do a bit of reviewing. Perhaps the quotation from Greek Internet Grammar <http://people.uleth.ca/~robinson/aorist.html> will help clarify your misconception that the Greek aorist always denoted completed action. Emphasis has been added.

Still not convinced? Well, check this explanation of the aorist, which can be found at the reference book section of Zondervan's website <http://www.zondervan.com/reference/expand.htm>.

I find it rather amusing that you accused me of saying that "Matthew" had lied, because you are now trying to argue that Matthew was not truthful when he said that Mary Magdalene ran from the tomb, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him. Now even if your "aorist" quibble would work--and the reference information quoted above shows that it won't--the text of Matthew still says that Mary ran from the tomb and "met Jesus." Hence, Mary had met Jesus while running from the tomb, so why did she tell Peter that the body of Jesus, whom she had met and touched, had been stolen?

Furthermore, the text of Matthew says that "they [Mary Magdalene and the other Mary] departed quickly from the tomb... and ran to bring his disciples word" (v:8). Then verse 9 says that "Jesus met them." If Jesus "met" them, then they encountered Jesus before they had found the disciples. If not, why not?

I'm sorry, Jaltus, but your quibbles won't work.

You mention that this Forum is biased, I might add that it is NO more biased than a fundamental Atheist Forum. You claim to objectivity is rather absurd. I mean apparently you have some pent up feelings towards the Church of Christ! No one would attack a position so vehemently unless they had a under girding hatred for it, which is a BIAS! (READ IT FARRELL)

If all the accounts in the Gospels where exactly the same, as I assume you think they must be to be "inerrant" would you then say that they where just copied from one gospel that was unreliable? (If so we could not win against you either way!)

Also I think you have a tendency not to think as a historian would. For instance even if there is a possiblity that the texts in question contradict each other that would not make the whole account "unhistorical". That is proabably the biggest non sequtir I have ever heard. So you are still stuck with the fact of the empty tomb even if the Mary M passages are slightly contradictory which actually makes the accounts more reliable if you would talk to historians!

In Christ,
Blake:p

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 02:45 PM

Obviously, it has been too long for you.

I teach Koine Greek. There is something called "Verbal Aspect Theory" which essentially allows me to laugh at your complete lack of understanding of Greek tense forms.

Your Ph D may be in English, but my doctoral work happens to be in Greek.

I suggest you try reading something NOT ON THE INTERNET and published since I was born. How about trying Stanley Porter's Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. If that is too thick, try his Idioms of the Greek New Testament. For that matter, pick up Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar.

Or anything by Buist Fanning.

Seriously, try thinking before you type, it might save some time.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 03:07 PM

Faramir:
Wow Dr. Till I see what you mean. A woman in deep grief goes to prepare a man for burial. A man she believed was the promised Messiah for her people. A man who was violently executed by the local authorities and whose followers just might be next. Of course she was frightened, of course she was confused. But when she sees and angle where she thought a dead man should be, she should have had the emotional wherewithal to fully comprehend what the angle said, even though it was contrary to what she was expecting. She then should have been expected to calmly and rationally go back and relay exactly what the angle said, she had no reason to panic, no reason to be confused, and no reason to be afraid. Wow I am convinced. :no:

Well, thank you very much for that quibble, Dr. Gleason Archer. Now would you care to answer the argument? Let's begin by getting your answers to some simple questions. They are all based on what Matthew's narrative said.

1. Did Mary M encounter an angel at the tomb?

2. Did the angel tell Mary M that Jesus had risen?

3. Did the angel tell Mary M to tell the disciples that Jesus would go before the disciples to Galilee?

4. Did Mary Magdalene run from the tomb with great joy?

5. Did Mary Magdalene meet Jesus as she was running to find the disciples?

6. Did Mary Magdalene touch Jesus?

7. Did Mary Magdalene worship Jesus?

If your answers are not yes to all of these questions, then you must have a reading comprehension problem. No, wait, I take that back. If your answers are not yes to all of these questions, then you must be a biblical inerrantist struggling with cognitive dissonance.

Now will you tell us why after having seen and heard all of this, Mary M could have been so confused that she didn't understand what had happened? So it is question time again.

Are you saying that you base your faith in the resurrection of a dead man on the "testimony" of a woman who was so confused that she couldn't tell the resurrected man from a possible stolen body?

Wow Dr. Till once again you amaze me.

I wish I could say the same for you, but there are two reasons why you don't amaze me: (1) I spent thirty years teaching literature to college students, so I am very familiar with the difficulties they can have understanding plain language. (2) I have spent decades debating biblical inerrantists, so I am familiar with all of the straws that they will grasp to try to cling to their ridiculous belief that there are no errors in the Bible.

Since you teach English and the Gospels were written in English, your analysis must be correct. Oh, silly me the Gospels were written in Greek. I thought you knew that. Now if Jaltus had made that analysis based on the Greek text, I might have to take it seriously.

Would you cite for us the sources who would say that the rules for pronoun-antecedent references in Greek were different from the requirements of Matthew's text as I presented them in my first post? Are you familiar enough with Greek to recognize that the verbs that referred to the different actions of "they" and "them" [the women] were plural?

Not only were the Gospels written in Greek, but they were written nearly 2000 years ago in a culture that was radically different from our own, English speaking culture. I assumed you knew this, because you quote Mr. Holding’s article where he clearly states this, but for some reason you fail to mention it. :huh:

Oh, yes, I'm familiar with Turkel's "it doesn't matter" theory, which he based on The Syrian Christ. I have, in fact, written a reply to it that is being readied for posting at The Skeptical Review Online. I can send you a copy of it in plain text if you would care to see it. I'll summarize just one rebuttal argument in it. The book of Ezekiel was almost rejected from the Jewish "canon" in the first century because of inconsistencies in it. It was saved from the trash heap by the efforts of Hanniah ben Hezekiah, who took 300 jars of oil with him, locked himself away, and didn't come out until he had reconciled the inconsistencies. This case was developed in much greater detail in my reply to Turkel and was documented by Talmudic sources that discussed Jewish concern over discrepancies in the books that were being considered for inclusion in their "canon." Turkel's claim that inconsistencies just "didn't matter" to the people of that time is contrary to evidence that shows they were. Furthermore, whether people of that period were unconcerned about inconsistencies doesn't keep an inconsistency from being an inconsistency. Is it your argument that an error or inconsistency in a book is not an error or inconsistency unless someone cares that the error or inconsistency is there?

If you hang around long, you'll learn that you need to take what Turkel says with a huge grain of salt.

I am not very familiar with the two visits theory. I would love to hear why you think your "fundamental atheist” reading that you give these texts is so much better that the two visits theory.
:D

Well, the answer to that is simple. I have already given the answer in my post that grammatically analyzed Matthew's text. I am still waiting for you or someone to show that the grammar of Matthew's narrative allows for the departure from the scene that the two-visits quibble claims. Why don't you post an analysis of Matthew's text that will point out exactly where the language of the narrative allows for Mary's departure from the action that Matthew attributed to "they" and "them," who were "the women" introduced at the beginning of the narrative?

I will wait eagerly to see it. Maybe I have found someone after decades of failures by other inerrantists who can solve this problem.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 03:12 PM

Oh, Till is right in his analysis of the pronouns. It does not allow for anyone less than the two mentioned, though it does allow for more.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 03:13 PM

You know what, I have never seen any one with more hostility over bible verses than you two! You are worse than the Church of Christ, arguing with every other denomination over baptism! This is funny just watching it!:rofl: (No offense J.P.)

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. Farrell maybe you can answer these questions for me. Since you as an atheist should not care if God exist why go to all the trouble and time to try to prove that the bible contradicts itself? I mean obviously you have a lot of time on your hands. You are not the only one though it is just about everyother skeptic I see. It must give meaning to your meaningless lives huh?
Farrell you always prance out contradictions left and right but when I read CRITICAL commentaries on the OT by scholars today I do not see nearly as many alleged contradictions! Maybe it is because they are Atheist with Christian sympathies right Farrell?

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 03:30 PM

Carr:
' I spoke to Shania Twain and Celine Dion at the Superbowl. I asked the women to sing well. They said that they would.'

According to Mr. Holding's contrived rules of Biblical interpretation, he would claim that we cannot tell who I asked to sing well, and who said that they would sing well, as there were lots of women at the Superbowl, and there are accounts of other women singing.

Turkel:
Uh oh, it's that decontextualization impairment again:

Uh, oh, it's that old Turkel evasion again. Would someone tell me how Turkel's abstract comments below explains anything about the grammatical requirements of Matthew's resurrection narrative?

1) Once again -- we are pedantic Western literalists. Not ancients for whom such details are of little relevance compared to the core message.

2) Once again -- we aren't limited by practical considerations in what we can report.

I find his reasoning very contrived.

You would, because you are grossly decontextualized and reading the text like the Sunday Times. Same problem you had with guilt and shame in the ancient world and reading the NIV in English to prove the ancients had individual consciences. Keep running in circles around that sun dog, Stevie.

If Turkel handed in such abstract rambling as this in a college English class, he probably wouldn't like the grade he got.

I'll ask him a question. If inconsistencies in biblical texts didn't matter to people of that time, then why was there so much concern about inconsistencies in Ezekiel and other books when Jewish leaders were trying to decide on "canonical" books in the 1st century AD?

As I said elsewhere, Turkel and his "thralls" seem to be arguing that errors and inconsistencies were not errors and inconsistencies if no one cared that errors and inconsistencies were in their holy books. What kind of logic is that?

The issue is not whether anyone cared--and the evidence shows that they did care--but whether there are inconsistencies in the biblical text.

I'm still waiting for someone to show that Matthew's Mary Magdalene was consistent with John's Mary Magdalene.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 03:39 PM

I'm still waiting for you to show you know anything about Greek. Or is it your lack of knowledge that keeps you from responding to my post on Verbal Aspect Theory?

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 03:52 PM

For anyone interested on certain methods of harmonization which Mr. Till Despises I would suggest Glenn Miller's article on this which I do not believe Till will address http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Lizard

January 30th 2003, 04:01 PM

Jaltus:
Oh, Till is right in his analysis of the pronouns. It does not allow for anyone less than the two mentioned, though it does allow for more.

Thanks Jaltus.

I really don't have a problem with that analysis. I did not mean to imply that I did.

I was trying to make a parrallel between the way his analysis treated the Matthew text as if it were written in English with no reference to the fact that the original is in Greek and the way he ignores the low context ANE culture and treats it as if it were a high context modern Western culture.

Mr. Till you said:

Oh, yes, I'm familiar with Holden's "it doesn't matter" theory, which he based on The Syrian Christ. I have, in fact, written a reply to it that is being readied for posting at The Skeptical Review Online. I can send you a copy of it in plain text if you would care to see it.

I would very much like to see that.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 04:04 PM

I know, but he asked for confirmation.

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 04:05 PM

Many sections in the text are confusing however, and their meaning has eluded both traditional commentators as well as contemporary scholars. Moreover, there are theological elements and halachic directives which contradict verses found in the Torah itself. Thus while Exodus 20:5 says that God will visit " the guilt of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generations of those who reject me," Ezekiel 18:4 maintains that "only the person who sins will die." With respect to halacha, Leviticus 21:7 forbids the high priest to take a widow or divorcee as a wife, whereas Ezekiel 44:22 extends this prohibition to all priests. As a result of problems such as these, the Talmud records an attempt to remove the Book of Ezekiel from the Tanakh, and conceal it. Rabbi Hananiah ben Hezekiah is credited with reconciling all of the discrepancies and apparent contradictions, ensuring that the book would remain in the canon. However none of his attempts at reconciliation have survived!

Ben Hezekiah worked to solve contradictions to the Law and theology as described in the Torah,which were considered more important than incidental details in a report such as:

{The} difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 04:09 PM

Oh, the Greek text I use is the standard one, NA 27.

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 04:09 PM

Oh, this is just so much fun to watch.

Folks, get used to it -- John thinks he knows it all just by popping open the English text and thinking in blatant one-dimensionalism. This is the result of 30 years of being stuck in a Church of Christ exegetical rut.

Faramir, note how he just avoided your reply. Completely typical.

Jaltus, the man thinks he knows more than you just by virtue of a stale memory. And he sends you Encyclopedia references as an answer. Asking John to get off the La-Z-Boy and learn something is like asking an elephant to drop his trunk. Get used to it. :D I've been dealing with it for years now:

"The Israelites had to be serfs. So says the Viking Desk Reference!"

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE3-3.html

"I'll show that specialist in ancient anthropology that guilt didn't exist in Biblical times! Here are some Bible quotes!"

http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html

Now as for this latest flush from John:

Oh, yes, I'm familiar with [Holding]'s "it doesn't matter" theory, which he based on The Syrian Christ.

I.e, based on the writings of a native of the East who lived and breathed the culture and knows better than a Midwestern English professor who couldn't even figure the French out. How many souls did you convert while over there, John?

I have, in fact, written a reply to it that is being readied for posting at The Skeptical Review Online.

It takes about 3 weeks to get these things ready. Meanwhile all those other projects (Land Promise, etc.) are sort of waiting for attention as he tries to impress the fans on this forum -- all 150 of them -- by constantly opening new topics and letting the old ones sort of slide into obscurity.

The book of Ezekiel was almost rejected from the Jewish "canon" in the first century because of inconsistencies in it. It was saved from the trash heap by the efforts of Hanniah ben Hezekiah, who took 300 jars of oil with him, locked himself away, and didn't come out until he had reconciled the inconsistencies.

Oh, you go right ahead and post that bit of flushing, Johnny. I really want you to, because I don't want you having any chances at taking any of it back. You'll be tasting toenail polish again faster than you can blow your nose. It took me all of 2 minutes to see how to put that argument on the trash heap. Heck, Hamster saw it already. Good Hamster. How long before Turtle Miles has all the coding done? How about you post an advance copy so I can once more have the rebuttal posted even before it appears on tsr.com?

Is it your argument that an error or inconsistency in a book is not an error or inconsistency unless someone cares that the error or inconsistency is there?

Now you're actually getting it. Think "semantic contract".

If you hang around long, you'll learn that you need to take what [Holding] says with a huge grain of salt.

If you hang around as long as John does, you'll start to look like him. If you hang around even longer you'll watch him bury himself in deeper piles of cow manure, then lift his arm and sniff and still be saying, "Smell? I don't smell anything." :rofl:

Would someone tell me how [Holding]'s abstract comments below explains anything about the grammatical requirements of Matthew's resurrection narrative?

It's been explained once and that's enough. Your problems with reading comprehension ("You want me to pay for 90% of your website?" "You think the priests expected a resurrection?") are well documented. If I were one of your students I would demand a refund.

I'm still waiting for someone to show that Matthew's Mary Magdalene was consistent with John's Mary Magdalene.

You're also undoubtedly waiting for the 1929 Stock Market Crash. When can we expect you to tackle my debate challenge on ostriches and donations?

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 04:15 PM

Oh, you go right ahead and post that bit of flushing, Johnny. I really want you to, because I don't want you having any chances at taking any of it back. You'll be tasting toenail polish again faster than you can blow your nose. It took me all of 2 minutes to see how to put that argument on the trash heap. Heck, Hamster saw it already. Good Hamster.

Now I feel bad, because he worked so hard on that essay and had his hopes up -- guess that's what you get for revealing your ace in the hole too early.

:(

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 04:21 PM

Hamster:
Now I feel bad, because he worked so hard on that essay and had his hopes up -- guess that's what you get for revealing your ace in the hole too early.

:(

Arrogance does tend to have that affect. Contrarily it helps to be versed in your Sun Tzu. ;)

But he'll probably post it anyway with a contrived (first definition) excuse as to why it's not a good reason. Along the lines of, "You can't ask for money like Dan Barker because he wears a different color sweater!"

JP

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 05:09 PM

The book of Ezekiel was almost rejected from the Jewish "canon" in the first century because of inconsistencies in it. It was saved from the trash heap by the efforts of Hanniah ben Hezekiah, who took 300 jars of oil with him, locked himself away, and didn't come out until he had reconciled the inconsistencies.

Hmmm...the Talmud, dating to what, at the earliest AD 225 (which is actually the dating for the Mishna's compilation by Yahudah ha Nasi) to the 7th century AD (according to Jacob Neusener Invitation to the Talmud, has this beritha from b. Menahot 45a about the questionable nature of Ezekiel. Now let us look at Zimmerli's commentary on Ezekiel, vol. 1. He in speaking of other mentions of Ezekiel in Baba Batra 15a says:

This text, however, can scarcely support critical conclusions about genuine recollection retained here of a process of editing the book of Ezekiel," Walther Zimmerli. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, p. 74)

I picked Zimmerli because he does not hold to inerrancy just so that you could see that you have to imagine errors that even critical scholars do not hold.

So lets see if there are any earlier attestations to the canonicity of the text. First is Ezekiel part of the LXX? Yup! Now lets look at Qumran. Ezekiel was such an important document to this community that it informs the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll. So this "endangered book" is freed from that peril. Oh and what were those inconsistencies? It failed to support and validate the Temple sacrificial system as the traditions of the elders had grown to revere. It was not so much internal inconsistencies or even contradictions between it and the Pentateuch as it was advocating a new form of worship, for instance the lack of separation between Jews and Gentiles in the Temple precincts. The idea that God would include Gentiles in the covenant community was appalling to the Rabbis. Now let us take up the maxim of Dr. Michael Swartz of The Ohio State University, when we read the Mishna and Talmud we must always keep in mind the anti-Christian polemic of the rabbis [Swartz is Jewish]. So, now let us think what is a central teaching to Christianity…ahh, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile," so this 'inconsistency' would seem to legitimate a Christian claim and show how it was anticipated in the OT, thus the rabbis would not exactly be found of this. However, if you would have only researched the polemical nature of the Talmud [Mishna + Gemarra] you would have seen this.

I ask that you make cogent arguments and fully research them in light of the Jewish-Christian polemics of the time. Critical scholars have held for over a century that the prophetic corpus was closed well prior to the first century AD. Even the old theory that the Writings [Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1&2 Chronicles] were closed at Jamnia in 90 AD has been rethought so that it now seem that the counsel there was more recognizing what had been the long accepted shape of the OT. It’s funny, you are the first person I have ever heard of dating the shaping of the canon, in regards to the prophets, to the first century AD. Moreover, while a previous generation of scholars linked the collections as representing a rough correspondence to their date, this has been shown to be a fallacious argument.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 05:19 PM

rturkel:
Meanwhile, John flushes in, avoiding my debate challenge like the plague... :rofl:

I have avoided your debate challenge like the plague? What challenge was that, Turkel? I haven't seen it, but whatever it is, provided that it is related to biblical inerrancy, I will accept it if you will agree to accept mine. My challenge was, in case you have forgotten, that we do a point-by-point debate. You accuse me of not replying to your arguments, although you know from our exchanges on our websites [mine linked and yours unlinked] that I take your articles and go through every line of them to answer every point you make and even some that you don't make, because many of your comments aren't even close to being "points."

So my challenge is to let you start the debate by posting just one argument or point that you think I have evaded. I will answer it, and you will rebut it and so on. The debate will not digress to anything else until we have completed debating this one point or argument. Then the ball comes to my court, and I will post just one point, which you will then answer, as we repeat the process.

Did you not see this challenge, Turk?

smilax

January 30th 2003, 05:24 PM

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=292.

You can practice the point-by-point thing by answering Jaltus, GrayPilgrim, and the others who have been casting their pearls before a mental black hole thus far.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 05:39 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Hmmm...the Talmud, dating to what, at the earliest AD 225 (which is actually the dating for the Mishna's compilation by Yahudah ha Nasi) to the 7th century AD (according to Jacob Neusener Invitation to the Talmud, has this beritha from b. Menahot 45a about the questionable nature of Ezekiel.

Am I trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't know that the Talmud existed long before AD 225? This is sort of like biblical manuscripts, GP. A copy that dates to, say, AD400 doesn't mean that this book didn't exist before then. By tradition the Talmud existed long before, but the period of the Talmud [Tannaim] dates from the 1st century BC, in the time of Hillel and Shammai, and ended around AD 200. There were actually two Talmuds: the Palestinian and the Babylonian.

Was Ezekiel respected in the BC era? Yes, it was, but it came under heavy attack in the 1st century AD when Jewish leaders were trying to decide what should be official or "canonical" books. This was when Hannaniah ben Hezekiah came to the rescue with his 300 jars of oil and worked in isolation to harmonize the book of Ezekiel. Such an effort as this shows that the people of that time, contrary to Turkel's claim, did care about inconsistencies in their sacred texts.

Now are you going to answer my argument or pull a Turkel and ignore it?

I have another question for you. Is it your position that if people don't care if errors and inconsistencies are in a book, then the errors and inconsistencies are not errors and inconsistencies?

Let's see if anyone in this forum defending biblical inerrancy can actually try to answer questions and arguments.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 05:52 PM

LOL, you should look at what you read.

Am I trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't know that the Talmud existed long before AD 225? GP said:Hmmm...the Talmud, dating to what, at the earliest AD 225 (which is actually the dating for the Mishna's compilation by Yahudah ha Nasi) You do know what compilation means, right?

You are currently dealing with myself, Ph D student in NT (read Koine Greek) and GrayPilgrim, a future Ph D in OT (read Hebrew). In other words, you are dealing with people who are near experts in their fields. Nice try.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 05:57 PM

smilax:
Jaltus versus Holding! Should be fun to watch.

Anyway, the reason Turkel doesn't think Mary Magdalene was present in Matthew xxviii, 5 is the fact that she ran to Peter and John to tell them the body was gone. If she were present, she would have told them the whole story. Holding would be the first to point out mindless arguments from silence.

Well, well, well, so Turkel doesn't think that Mary M was present in Matthew 28:5. Okay, then maybe you can explain to us how the antecedents of "they" and "them" in this section could have possibly excuded Mary Magdalene.

Let me draw you a picture that even you should be able to understand, Smilax.

1. The pronoun "they" is third person plural, and before you quibble that the text was written in Greek, I'll point out that the verbs in this text were third-person plural in Greek.

2. Pronouns will have antecedents.

3. Antecedents must agree with the pronouns in number.

4. The pronouns therefore require a plural antecedent.

5. The only possible antecedent for "they" and "them" would be "the women."

6. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only women mentioned in this text.

7. By necessity Mary Magdalene has to be one of the antecedents of "they" and "them."

Now explain to me how the grammar of this text allows the exclusion of Mary M during the narrative.

Is anybody ever going to address this issue?

I'll answer that question for you. No, no one will address this issue, because it cannot be answered without surrendering the inerrantist position.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 05:58 PM

Farrell Till:
Am I trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't know that the Talmud existed long before AD 225? This is sort of like biblical manuscripts, GP. A copy that dates to, say, AD400 doesn't mean that this book didn't exist before then. By tradition the Talmud existed long before, but the period of the Talmud [Tannaim] dates from the 1st century BC, in the time of Hillel and Shammai, and ended around AD 200. There were actually two Talmuds: the Palestinian and the Babylonian.

Yes I know that it eixsted prior to its being put in written form. However, my point was that using a polemical document does not always suffice as a great form of evidence. And no duh that there were to Talmuds. The Palestinian which was shorter was less respected than the more expansive Babylonian. the "b." prior to Menahot implies that this beritha comes from the more expansive Babylonian Talmud.

Was Ezekiel respected in the BC era? Yes, it was, but it came under heavy attack in the 1st century AD when Jewish leaders were trying to decide what should be official or "canonical" books. This was when Hannaniah ben Hezekiah came to the rescue with his 300 jars of oil and worked in isolation to harmonize the book of Ezekiel.

First, again you are the first person I have ever heard that states that the canon was that fluid concerning the prophetic corpus (Joshua, Judges, Samuels, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Book of the 12) in the first century AD. I actually enjoy reading about hte history of this stuff so that is what makes it extra fascinating to me. And so as I posted in my earlier post:

This text, however, can scarcely support critical conclusions about genuine recollection retained here of a process of editing the book of Ezekiel," Walther Zimmerli. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, p. 74)

Such an effort as this shows that the people of that time, contrary to Turkel's claim, did care about inconsistencies in their sacred texts.

Now are you going to answer my argument or pull a Turkel and ignore it?

Yes they were concerned. With this post I am stating that using fallacious history does not support a position it only weakens it. So I still think you have failed to answer any of the questions posted by others. Moreover, in a forum of htis style it is generraly expected that people answer questions as wellas ask them. You show a lack of this common courteousy.

I have another question for you. Is it your position that if people don't care if errors and inconsistencies are in a book, then the errors and inconsistencies are not errors and inconsistencies?

Let's see if anyone in this forum defending biblical inerrancy can actually try to answer questions and arguments.

Yes they do matter. And let's see if anyone in this forum defending biblical errancy can actually try to answer questions and arguments.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 06:05 PM

Blake Reas:
You mention that this Forum is biased, I might add that it is NO more biased than a fundamental Atheist Forum. You claim to objectivity is rather absurd. I mean apparently you have some pent up feelings towards the Church of Christ! No one would attack a position so vehemently unless they had a under girding hatred for it, which is a BIAS! (READ IT FARRELL)

Well, gee, Blake, when have I ever said that atheist forums are not biased? If you really knew me, you would know that I deplore the radicalism, ignorance, bias, and such like of skeptics and atheists as much as anyone could. I do think, however, that the bias and ignorance of biblical fundamentalists is generally greater than what you will find among atheists and skeptics.

I have no "pent-up feelings" for the Church of Christ. In fact, I actually have a sort of admiration for this church for having a far more logical and consistent view of biblical inerrancy than the Turkel types.

Now would you care to try to resolve the discrepancy that I have presented in "The Mary Magdalene Problem"?

If all the accounts in the Gospels where exactly the same, as I assume you think they must be to be "inerrant" would you then say that they where just copied from one gospel that was unreliable? (If so we could not win against you either way!)

When have I ever said that accounts of the same incidents would have to be exactly the same to be inerrant? Would you mind quoting where I have ever said or even implied it? Omission, of details, for example would not constitute errancy in a written document. I have said this so many times that I have to conclude that comments like yours come from someone who hasn't taken the time to find out what his opponent really believes.

My position is that accounts of the same incidents must be consistent in what they DO report. Even consistency would not guarantee inerrancy, but verifiable inconsistency would guarantee errancy.

Also I think you have a tendency not to think as a historian would. For instance even if there is a possiblity that the texts in question contradict each other that would not make the whole account "unhistorical".

I have never even implied that inconsistencies in a document make the whole thing "unhistorical," so once again I am trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't even understand what the issue is.

I do think, however, that the "core" claim of the narrative, i.e., a dead man returned to life, would be a good reason to reject the historicity of the claim even if everything said in the narrative was consistent.

Anyway, you are fighting a straw man. My argument is not that inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives in and of themselves make the "whole account" unhistorical. My argument is that there is at least one irreconcilable inconsistency in the narratives; hence, the Bible is not inerrant. Why don't you try to stick to the issue?

That is proabably [sic] the biggest non sequtir [sic] I have ever heard.

Well, since I have never claimed this, there is no non sequitur for you to hear.

So you are still stuck with the fact of the empty tomb even if the Mary M passages are slightly contradictory

Here is another inerrantist begging questions that need to be proven. Why am I stuck with an empty tomb? Because the New Testament says that there was an empty tomb? If that is your argument, then you are engaging in special pleading and question begging.

Anyway, if you could establish the historicity of an empty tomb, what would you have proven except that there was an empty tomb? The empty tomb would not prove that the person who had been buried there had risen from the dead. There is a huge cemetery across the road from my house. If I should wake up some morning, look out, and see an empty grave, the last thing I would conclude would be that the person who had been buried there had risen from the dead. There would be far more plausible explanations for the empty grave: the body had been exhumed for autopsy, the body had been moved to another location, the body had been stolen for some gruesome reason, etc.

If you found an empty tomb in your town and heard some cult members claiming that the person who had been buried there had risen from the dead, would you feel that you would be "stuck with an empty tomb"?

Do you biblicists ever think logically?

which actually makes the accounts more reliable if you would talk to historians!

If I talked to historians, I am sure that they would tell me what I already know. Documents from ancient times that were filled with fantastic claims about supernatural events, such as resurrections from the dead, were more likely to be reflections of the superstitions, legends, and myths of the time than historical fact.

Now are you going to reply to my argument and show textual evidence that the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative does not require readers to understand that Mary M heard an angel announce the resurrection of Jesus, and then met and touched Jesus as she was running to deliver the angel's message to the disciples?

smilax

January 30th 2003, 06:06 PM

I was about to respond, but I just realized that Till misquoted me and replaced Holding's pseudonym with his real name. I feel no obligation to respond to such dishonesty and/or fanatical obsession with a person's handle.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 06:12 PM

Proverbs 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

smilax

January 30th 2003, 06:17 PM

Well, well, well, so GrayPilgrim doesn't think that we should respond to Till's nonsense. Okay, then maybe you can explain to us how "answer not" and "answer" in this section can be obeyed at the same time..

Let me draw you a picture that even you should be able to understand, GrayPilgrim, with my mental Etch-and-Sketch and argument by condescension. I know English!

1. The verb "answer" is imperative mood, and before you quibble that the text was written in Hebrew, I'll point out that the verbs in this text were imperative mood in Hebrew.

2. Imperatives are commands.

3. Commands should be obeyed.

4. The verbs therefore require you to obey them.

5. If you obey both of them, you must answer and answer not.

6. "Answer not" is the opposite of "answer."

7. By necessity, these two options are mutually exclusive.

Now explain to me how the grammar of this text allows you to exclude one of the commands.

Is anybody ever going to address this issue?

I'll answer that question for you. No, no one will address this issue, because it cannot be answered without surrendering the inerrantist position.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 06:23 PM

Jaltus:
You are currently dealing with myself, Ph D student in NT (read Koine Greek) and GrayPilgrim, a future Ph D in OT (read Hebrew). In other words, you are dealing with people who are near experts in their fields. Nice try.

Oh, please, Jaltus, give me a break. You are currently dealing with a retired college teacher, who spent a career surrounded by Ph. D.'s Some of them I would have considered rather expert in their fields, but some bordered on intellectual density. From what I am seeing from you and GP, you are far from being experts, but since you are still students, you are probably young and will grow up some day to realize that you didn't know nearly as much as you now think you know. Wasn't GP the one who said that the Greek aorist denoted completed action?

Somewhere in my paper files, I have a list of Mormon authors with PH. D. degrees from universities like Princeton, Standford, Yale, etc., who have written apologetic articles on behalf of Mormonism. Their degrees hardly guaranteed them expertise.

By the way, do you know what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is?

Oh, yes, I'll also say that you are dealing with someone who started studying the Bible very seriously in 1948 and has continued it ever since. If I told you how much time I have spent in biblical studies and research, you wouldn't believe me, so I won't bother. However, the time you have spent in Ph. D. research would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the time I have spent in biblical studies.

Oh, by the way, I taught English in college, so you may be interested in knowing that you misused "myself" in your opening sentence quoted above. You should have used "me."

Revolg

January 30th 2003, 06:27 PM

So, using your logic, your friends with PhDs in their particular expertise does not make them credible, either. We all know you are an old ex-preacher who may have studied the Bible all your life. However, there are some who have ALSO studied the Bible all their lives and are scholars in their fields. Some happen to be conservative Bible professors. I know one here on the forums ;).

smilax

January 30th 2003, 06:29 PM

Farrell Till:
You are currently dealing with a retired college teacher, who spent a career surrounded by Ph. D.'s1. Why is the relative clause subordinate?

2. Why use an apostrophe to denote the plural?

3. Where is the puncutation for the end of the sentence?From what I am seeing from you and GP, you are far from being experts, but since you are still students, you are probably young and will grow up some day to realize that you didn't know nearly as much as you now think you know.Fallacy of... "I'm older than you, so you lose."Somewhere in my paper files, I have a list of Mormon authors with PH. D. degrees from universities like Princeton, Standford, Yale, etc., who have written apologetic articles on behalf of Mormonism.1. "PH. D."?

2. Subordinate relative clause again?

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 06:30 PM

Farrell Till:
Wasn't GP the one who said that the Greek aorist denoted completed action?

:D No! I leave Greek alone. I can read it but I do not get into gramamtical contests in Greek!

You should have used "me."

That shows a complete lack of understanding of the way language works! Language is a communicative system. The appeal to prescriptive grammar is laughable. Now in technical discourse there does tend to be an accepted usage. However, to correct someone on how to use language in discussion is the acme of silliness and shows how pedantic you are.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 06:32 PM

Smilax you are hillarious, you get three banana dudes!

:yipee::yipee::yipee: (aw heck make it five) :yipee::yipee:

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 06:33 PM

Carr:
I see Mr. Holding cannot tell us who the angel spoke to. And he cannot find one commentator who can tell us who the women were in Matthew 28:5 that the angel spoke to. Not one!

Turkel:
Oh heck. I just read Keener off and that means "not one". I don't suspect I'll find one that cares, either, for the reasons already stated, but ya'll see how Stevie blows it all out his ears to make it into federal case city. Beyond that you can't tell what the sources don't say. But federal case 2:

Carr:
Certainly, his contrived method of exegesis has destroyed the Bible as a source of information.

Turkel:
Ah. So one point in Matthew disproves the veracity of, um, Luke. Or Kings. Or...is there a cuckoo clock pic I can put here?

Carr:
' I spoke to Shania Twain and Celine Dion at the Superbowl. I asked the women to sing well. They said that they would.'

According to Mr. Holding's contrived rules of Biblical interpretation, he would claim that we cannot tell who I asked to sing well, and who said that they would sing well, as there were lots of women at the Superbowl, and there are accounts of other women singing.

Turkel:
Uh oh, it's that decontextualization impairment again:

1) Once again -- we are pedantic Western literalists. Not ancients for whom such details are of little relevance compared to the core message.

2) Once again -- we aren't limited by practical considerations in what we can report.

Is anyone else noticing that Turkel never answers anything? That so many of you in this forum would consider this cracker-jack apologetics speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 06:35 PM

Is anyone else noticing that Turkel never answers anything?

That's an ironic statement coming from someone who repeatedly slices and dices the posts he's responding to in order to avoid toughies. Would you like a list of everything you've jumped over so far?

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 06:36 PM

Mr Till,

Please respect jpholding desire to use his psudonym while on this forum.

Thank you,
GP

smilax

January 30th 2003, 06:37 PM

"Crackerjack" isn't hyphenated...

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 06:40 PM

Hamster:
That's an ironic statement coming from someone who repeatedly slices and dices the posts he's responding to in order to avoid toughies. Would you like a list of everything you've jumped over so far?

I'll make the same proposal to you, Hamster. If you will list what you think I have not replied to, I will answer it if you will agree to get those who are evading questions and arguments from Carr and me to answer them. Since my Mary Magdalene Problem was posted first (before anyone posted anything for me to answer), I think it would be fair to ask you to begin the process by answering this argument.

If I have by chance not answered something, I hope you will understand that the computer world is fairly new to me, and this particular forum is very, very new to me.

smilax

January 30th 2003, 06:43 PM

Johnny, what do you think is grammatically wrong with "the women" referring to the women that were present, not necessarily the two Marys?

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 07:24 PM

If you will list what you think I have not replied to, I will answer it if you will agree to get those who are evading questions and arguments from Carr and me to answer them.

No thanks - I'll simply post evidence for what I originally claimed. If you think Holding has evaded anything you've written, list 'em.

Carr: I see Mr. Holding cannot tell us who the angel spoke to. And he cannot find one commentator who can tell us who the women were in Matthew 28:5 that the angel spoke to.

J.P. Holding: {Y}ou can't tell what the sources don't say.

Mr. Till: (Crickets) - 'That's not an answer!'

Carr: His contrived method of exegesis has destroyed the Bible as a source of information

J.P. Holding: So one point in Matthew disproves the veracity of, um, Luke. Or Kings. Or...is there a cuckoo clock pic I can put here?

(Crickets)

Mr. Till: - 'That's not an answer!'

Carr: According to Mr. Holding's contrived rules of Biblical interpretation, he would claim that we cannot tell who I asked to sing well, and who said that they would sing well, as there were lots of women at the Superbowl, and there are accounts of other women singing.

J.P. Holding: We are pedantic Western literalists. Not ancients for whom such details are of little relevance compared to the core message. We aren't limited by practical considerations in what we can report.

(Thus rendering Carr's complaint irrelevent and anachronistic)

Mr. Till: Would someone tell me how Turkel's abstract comments … {explain} anything about the grammatical requirements of Matthew's resurrection narrative?

(Holding's argument is dismissed as simply "abstract comments" - Holding has already explained this.)

Carr: He cannot even tell us who was told this rather important information in Matthew 28:5-9.

J.P. Holding: Important to who and how and why? Are you forgetting that the Gospels were NOT evangelistic documents and that the securest testimony would rest upon the oral witness of the Apostles and other witnesses to the resurrected Jesus? You graphocentrist you.

(Thus rendering Carr's complaint null by virtue of it's category error)

Carr: Does Mr. Holding assume that the only disciples Jesus had were the ones Matthew names?

J. P. Holding: No. What's your point?

Team Sceptic: No Response :no:

Carr: Is his belief really based on contrived accounts like Matthew's Gospel which are so shoddy that, even after years to devoted study, Mr. Holding cannot even tell us who Matthew is referring to as supposed eyewitnesses?

J.P. Holding: There's that graphocentric bigotry, yet again!

(Same error repeated by Carr, as pointed out by J.P. Holding)

Team Sceptic: No Response :no:

Carr: But Mr. Holding never actually answers the question of who Jesus was referring to in John 3:11, when he used 'we'.

J.P. Holding: No answer can be squeezed from silence and it doesn't matter.

(Holding points out that Carr's complaint is irrelevent and moot)

Mr. Till: [Holding] evaded my primary argument in his reply at…

J.P. Holding: Fantasy Island, anyone? I didn't evade dip, John. I crushed your pedantic fundaliteralism to powder. Your primary argument is mind-numbingly irrelevant and I showed it was.

Mr. Till: No Response :no:

Mr. Till: However, the article did have the effect of causing [Holding] to remove his original article from his website.

J. P. Holding: Take credit for building the Great Wall of China while you're at it. It was removed not because your ego burped, but because it was superseded by http://www.tektonics.org/rezrvw.html where I chose to combine several arguments -- I also modified one other article that was superseded by that. This guy, folks, lies about his achievements, lies about others, and does it without a moment of hesitation.

Mr. Till: No Response :no:

J.P. Holding: John, how about that debate over ostriches and donations? When's part 17 coming out on the Land Promise? How about your replies on men with David, tarrying in the city, guilt in the ancient world, Abiathar, etc? Just keep buying new cars

Mr Till: No Response :no:

Mr. Till: If inconsistencies in biblical texts didn't matter to people of that time, then why was there so much concern about inconsistencies in Ezekiel and other books when Jewish leaders were trying to decide on "canonical" books in the 1st century AD?

Hamster: Ben Hezekiah worked to solve contradictions to the Law and theology as described in the Torah, which were considered more important than incidental details in a report.

(Thus arguing that Farrel Till's argument based on Ezekiel is a category error -- incidental details in report -- which would be dismissed using ma besay-il --- are not the same as contradictions to the law and theology. Till has grossly caricature Holding's argument and stretched it to include contradictions of every nature.)

Mr. Till: No Response

Mr. Till: Oh, yes, I'm familiar with [Holding]'s "it doesn't matter" theory, which he based on The Syrian Christ.

J.P. Holding: I.e, based on the writings of a native of the East who lived and breathed the culture and knows better than a Midwestern English professor who couldn't even figure the French out. How many souls did you convert while over there, John?

Mr. Till: No Response :no:

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 30th 2003, 07:25 PM

Farrell> Is anyone else noticing that Turkel never answers anything? That so many of you in this forum would consider this cracker-jack apologetics speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.

Guy> Only if you redefine "answer", and hey, your TSR is a jack in the box without the jack, so what's the deal?

I hope you're not avoiding my post on the Diegesis, you know. It's in the "Hi! Farrell Till" thread. Let's add a lemon to the drink: Historians place Josephus' birth at about 37. Taylor says Josephus wrote in 40 AD. (p412) What, when he was three?! goo goo gah gah!

:yipee: Isn't it ironic that after all those years you begged Holding to turn up on your forum, and now you're here on a Tektonics-run one, with him.

;) a-yup.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 08:31 PM

Revolg:
So, using your logic, your friends with PhDs in their particular expertise does not make them credible, either.

By golly, I think you have it. Degrees do not within themselves make anyone an expert. Some of the best experts I have known never even went to college, and some of the densest I have known had advanced degrees. Are you aware that some colleges will now give semester credits based on a person's life experience?

We all know you are an old ex-preacher who may have studied the Bible all your life. However, there are some who have ALSO studied the Bible all their lives and are scholars in their fields. Some happen to be conservative Bible professors. I know one here on the forums ;).

See my comments above. College degrees do not indicate expertise.

Who is the Bible professor in this forum? I'm always interested in sources that can be contacted when information is needed.

By the way, I noticed in some other posts insinuations that I have falsely claimed to have a doctor's degree. That is absolutely false, and I defy anyone to produce any evidence that I have ever made such a claim. Many people call me Dr. Till, but I always correct this when the mistake is made.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 08:39 PM

I cogitate that it comes from your boadcasting that you taught college English courses for 30 years, and since teaching college courses generally connotes a PhD, your failure to be specfic probably leads to the misunderstanding.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 08:48 PM

Punkish:
I hope you're not avoiding my post on the Diegesis, you know. It's in the "Hi! Farrell Till" thread. Let's add a lemon to the drink: Historians place Josephus' birth at about 37. Taylor says Josephus wrote in 40 AD. (p412) What, when he was three?! goo goo gah gah!

I don't recall seeing your post on the Diegesis, but perhaps you are not aware that I am not a supporter of this work. I admire Reverend Taylor for having seen the absurdity of Christianity, but I have found too much careless research in his book to recommend it, so I honestly don't know what can be trusted in it. He was from a time when writers like Higgins and Graves grabbed any charge against the Bible as truth without first checking into it. I consider them sort of the Dennis McKinseys of their time.

Perhaps some of you guys should find out more about me before you undertake to make charges about me.

Isn't it ironic that after all those years you begged Holding to turn up on your forum, and now you're here on a Tektonics-run one, with him.

This is a Tektonics forum? I wonder why **** that he was going to recommend it on his website if it is one of his forums. I would think that he would have announced it before it even got off the ground.

Anyway, if it is one of his forums, I couldn't care less. I have been trying for years to get onto his website. I just want him in a place where the audience can see his evasion. Of course, I realize that many of you will lack the critical skills to see that he is evading arguments that he can't answer. Why, for example, has he not yet explained why Mary Magdalene, who heard the angel announce the resurrection, and then met and touched the resurrected Jesus as she was leaving the tomb would have told Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Maybe you can answer that, punkish. Will you?

Revolg

January 30th 2003, 08:51 PM

Jaltus is the Greek Scholar here. He does know decent Apologetics.

Farrell Till

January 30th 2003, 08:56 PM

GrayPilgrim:
That shows a complete lack of understanding of the way language works! Language is a communicative system. The appeal to prescriptive grammar is laughable. Now in technical discourse there does tend to be an accepted usage. However, to correct someone on how to use language in discussion is the acme of silliness and shows how pedantic you are.

No offense intended, GP. I thought maybe you would care to know. I worked on several search committees to research applications for positions at the college where I taught, and many of those who served on the committees would have second thoughts about those whose applications and cover letters contained grammatical mistakes. "Myself" is one of the most abused words in English. Many people use it when they don't know whether to say "I" or "me." To someone who knows, "myself" stands out just as much as saying "I" where "me" is needed or vice versa.

Freak

January 30th 2003, 09:03 PM

Farrell Till:
I don't recall seeing your post on the Diegesis, but perhaps you are not aware that I am not a supporter of this work. I admire Reverend Taylor for having seen the absurdity of Christianity, but I have found too much careless research in his book to recommend it, so I honestly don't know what can be trusted in it. He was from a time when writers like Higgins and Graves grabbed any charge against the Bible as truth without first checking into it. I consider them sort of the Dennis McKinseys of their time.

Perhaps some of you guys should find out more about me before you undertake to make charges about me.

This is a Tektonics forum? I wonder why **** said that he was going to recommend it on his website if it is one of his forums. I would think that he would have announced it before it even got off the ground.

Anyway, if it is one of his forums, I couldn't care less. I have been trying for years to get onto his website. I just want him in a place where the audience can see his evasion. Of course, I realize that many of you will lack the critical skills to see that he is evading arguments that he can't answer. Why, for example, has he not yet explained why Mary Magdalene, who heard the angel announce the resurrection, and then met and touched the resurrected Jesus as she was leaving the tomb would have told Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Maybe you can answer that, Punkish. Will you?

Ferrell--

Jesus loves you and desires to have a personal relationship with you. I have read on your profile that you were once a pastor. I assume you know something about God. Well, this God loves you and cares for you. But time is running out. We are but a breath away from entering eternity.

I understand you are looking for answers. But, the fact is, you will never attain the answers that your heart desires. You are but a human, an imperfect one (as we all are) at that. So, you will fail in attaining all the knowledge that you desire. But this reality does not call in question God's deep love for you and your family.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 09:18 PM

Farrell Till:
No offense intended, GP. I thought maybe you would care to know. I worked on several search committees to research applications for positions at the college where I taught, and many of those who served on the committees would have second thoughts about those whose applications and cover letters contained grammatical mistakes. "Myself" is one of the most abused words in English. Many people use it when they don't know whether to say "I" or "me." To someone who knows, "myself" stands out just as much as saying "I" where "me" is needed or vice versa.

Like I said, in formal discourse there tends to be rules to follow. However, a web based discussion forum is not one of those venues. I am talking of the text linguistic school of thought Dressler and De Beaugrand's work or Harald Weinrich's work are generally the best. They speak of the difference between what is prescribed gramamr and descriptive grammar. Whether it fits the prescribed standards or not, if it communicates then it works. This theory takes into account that people generally do not use perfect grammar when they speek and thus does not expect them to do so. Thus while I would never use ain't in a formal paper [don't use it much anyways] as most English speakers understand that it is a negative particle it thus communicates, even though it does not fall with in the generally prescribed form of communication as English grammarians and lexicographers have delimted it. As a matter of fact it is listed in the Haper Collins German Unabridged Dictionary, which shows that it is an "incorrect" contraction, however I would argue that "incorrect" is a false category when it comes to lexicography. The question is, does it communicate? Not is it correct?

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 09:18 PM

Go Freak!:thumb:

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 09:21 PM

Ah. Playing dumb always works.

I have avoided your debate challenge like the plague? What challenge was that,

Smilax gave the link you missed when you fled from elsewhere on this board.

I haven't seen it, but whatever it is, provided that it is related to biblical inerrancy, I will accept it if you will agree to accept mine.

The ostrich one is. The donation one is not but since you brought it up as an issue you sure as bleck can't down and out on it now. Heck, you took time out of your busy schedule to whine about it and skip off other topics on the Bible, so obviously you don't consider it a waste of time.

articles and go through every line of them to answer every point you make and even some that you don't make

Yes, you waste considerable time like that in order to make your essays look like more is being done. We know all that. I.e., from Land Promise Part 2:

112 diversions from the topic of the consistency of the Biblical record in terms of Yahweh's Land Promises

69 transitional or summary statements

154 pep-rallies, snide remarks, and interruptions intended to pre-empt the argument

61 personal comments

326 repeated arguments (including the Deut. 9 argument repeated about 30 times)

3 promotions of other works

13 arguments addressing arguments we did not make, but were assumed upon us

224 pages of text (out of 264)

Yes, your obssession is quite evident. Maybe medication will help.

Let's see what else we have later here...

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 09:24 PM

Here we go again, around and around and...

Let me draw you a picture that even you should be able to understand, Smilax.

We know how Farrell likes pictures, esp. those he can color.

1. The pronoun "they" is third person plural, and before you quibble that the text was written in Greek, I'll point out that the verbs in this text were third-person plural in Greek.

And you have already been told why this makes no difference. None of this does. This is how it works again and again with John, folks -- he'll just repeat himself over and over and over as though he hasn't been answered. He learned that it plays well with the Skeptical crowd with a short attention span.

More? We'll see...

automatthew

January 30th 2003, 09:25 PM

This thread is getting really off. Not that it was brilliant to start, but it's gone from a lame attempt by Whosits to set a trap to the present pathetic scene of a small, blindfolded boy with a stick surrounded by hundreds of menacing pinatas.

Matthew

automatthew

January 30th 2003, 09:26 PM

Where is Whosits, anyway? Hello, are you out there?

Piebald

January 30th 2003, 09:27 PM

attempt by Whosits to set a trap to the present pathetic scene of a small, blindfolded boy with a stick surrounded by hundreds of menacing pinatas.

Opinion Noted.

Of course, I thought that said menacing pirahna -- which would have been a more apt analogy.

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 09:30 PM

Reading this as go along. Isn't it fascinating that John spent more time replying to Blake's post than anyone else's? :rofl:

Oh, please, Jaltus, give me a break. You are currently dealing with a retired college teacher, who spent a career surrounded by Ph. D.'s

And with not a lick of respect for any of them, each of whom would send you packing, John.

Some of them I would have considered rather expert in their fields, but some bordered on intellectual density. From what I am seeing from you and GP, you are far from being experts, but since

Pfft, hack -- the smell of arrogance coming from Illinois is overwhelming! Directions to John's house from mine: Go north till you smell it. Go west till you step in it.

you are still students, you are probably young and will grow up some day to realize that you didn't know nearly as much as you

Play the juice harp...get the rocking chair ready...am I right about this guy or what?

Somewhere in my paper files, I have a list of Mormon authors with PH. D. degrees from universities like Princeton, Standford, Yale, etc., who have written apologetic articles on behalf of Mormonism. Their degrees hardly guaranteed them expertise.

Shows how much you know. I read some of those works. I am informal friends with some of those Ph. D.s. They'd kick you to Hong Kong.

By the way, do you know what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is?

Of course. You can only appeal to yourself as an authority. :)

Oh, yes, I'll also say that you are dealing with someone who started studying the Bible very seriously in 1948 and has continued it ever since

And still haven't got it right. When John starts correcting your English you know his self-esteem is being pounded.

More!

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 09:32 PM

Farrell Till:
Is anyone else noticing that Holding never answers anything?

Only a certain delusional ex-preacher. What say all?

This is just so much fun.

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 30th 2003, 09:34 PM

Farrell Till:
I don't recall seeing your post on the Diegesis, but perhaps you are not aware that I am not a supporter of this work.

Guy> You don't fool me, Farrell. You wrote in TSR 1995: 1, in "Mitchell Rides again" to Lindell Mitchell,

"If he wants specific references that prove the mythological background of the Jesus story, he might try Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus by William Harwood, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? by Herbert Cutner, The Myth of the Resurrection by Joseph McCabe, How Did Christianity Really Begin? by Howard Teeple, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by T. W. Doane, and The Diegesis by the Reverend Robert Taylor.

He will find plenty of material in these books to open his eyes to the real origins of Christianity, and when he has finished with these sources, I have plenty more to recommend to him. Mitchell might be surprised at what he could learn if he should ever open his mind enough to permit objective investigation."

Guy> So you see, calling the Diegesis 'objective' and that by Mitchell reading it would 'open his eyes to the real origins of Christianity' without also mentioning your findings of unreliability sounds rather too much like support. Perhaps you would like to take this back? After all, there is an apology section at theskepticalreview.com which hasn't been used yet. :D

Farrell> I admire Reverend Taylor for having seen the absurdity of Christianity, but I have found too much careless research in his book to recommend it, so I honestly don't know what can be trusted in it.

Guy> Careless research? More like no research at all, he mostly made things up as he went along. But please pass on your comments to Acharya S, who thinks he's the bees knees for 19th century scholarship. You admire Robert Taylor? Sheesh, there is nothing admirable in the work, it's blasphemy and racism and lying all the way through. Total dishonesty. I'm surprised to see you citing it at all, in TSR. There are more absurdities in Diregesis [sic] than you've had hot dinners.

Farrell>He was from a time when writers like Higgins and Graves grabbed any charge against the Bible as truth without first checking into it.

Guy> What - like you do? :hrm:

Farrell> I consider them sort of the Dennis McKinseys of their time.

Perhaps some of you guys should find out more about me before you undertake to make charges about me.

Guy> I did, and the charge fits. Of course, it could be that you've investigated the Diegesis since 1995, but then why would you give it the thumbs up before investigating?

Farrell> This is a Tektonics forum? I wonder why Turkel said that he was going to recommend it on his website if it is one of his forums. I would think that he would have announced it before it even got off the ground.

Guy> Well, it's moderated by a Tektonite.

Farrell>Anyway, if it is one of his forums, I couldn't care less.

Guy> Er..didnt you read his profile, it doesn't say he is a moderator. Here we go again, opens a website and he's an expert.

Farrell>I have been trying for years to get onto his website.

Guy> You've been on his website's Rogue's gallery since you responded to McDowell's Evidence that demands a Verdict, chapter 1, without giving footnotes in your response (!)

Farrell> I just want him in a place where the audience can see his evasion. Of course, I realize that many of you will lack the critical skills to see that he is evading arguments that he can't answer.

Guy> IOW Western mindset methodology is sufficient to debunk the bible, but those who consider using 'critical skills' properly i.e. considering social context is 'evasion' :hrm:

Why, for example, has he not yet explained why Mary Magdalene, who heard the angel announce the resurrection, and then met and touched the resurrected Jesus as she was leaving the tomb would have told Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Maybe you can answer that, Punkish. Will you?

Guy> Sorry, I don't follow about this stolen body business, can you explain further. Thanks

jpholding

January 30th 2003, 09:36 PM

Hey Memory Board,

By the way, I noticed in some other posts insinuations that I have falsely claimed to have a doctor's degree. That is absolutely false, and I defy anyone to produce any evidence that I have ever made such a claim. Many people call me Dr. Till, but I always correct this when the mistake is made.

No, corncob, look AGAIN. An agnostic reader referred to you as a Dr. I replied that you were not one and posted your creds from the Sec Web. No one said dippy doo about you claiming to have a Dr.'s degree falsely.

Is this a lie by you, memory lapse, or a "90% of the website" reading booboo?

Wheeeeee.

Gavin

January 30th 2003, 09:45 PM

JP: Please watch the tone of your posts. Some of your acrimoniousness if unnecessary.

Thank you.

Revolg

January 30th 2003, 09:47 PM

By golly, I think you have it. Degrees do not within themselves make anyone an expert.

Of course Till, anyone can have a PhD in a science or english field and still spew worthless education at the students like a mindless robot.

Some of the best experts I have known never even went to college, and some of the densest I have known had advanced degrees. Are you aware that some colleges will now give semester credits based on a person's life experience?

Some of the best experts I know personally belong to a field known as "Christianity". I am real good friends with my friends here at Trinity Seminary. No I am not aware of colleges that give out semester credits based on a person's life experience. However, in another way of saying that is, you can get continual education through an institution while earning a degree.

Who is the Bible professor in this forum? I'm always interested in sources that can be contacted when information is needed.

Jaltus is a Greek Professor and is good at apologetics (as good as he can get). But Till, I am bringing my friends along like Praxeus, Rev Neal, and AtHisFeet. They in themselves might not hold degrees in biblical studies except for Rev Neal but he nonetheless is excellent. Rev Neal wrote about you, ya know?

By the way, I noticed in some other posts insinuations that I have falsely claimed to have a doctor's degree. That is absolutely false, and I defy anyone to produce any evidence that I have ever made such a claim. Many people call me Dr. Till, but I always correct this when the mistake is made.

For this cause you can call me Dr. Eric. ;) Using the word "defy" would not be a wise choice do to the meaning of that word. You can get someone to scrap away this evidence even if it was false. :P

Demolition Man

January 30th 2003, 10:01 PM

Will someone just answer Till about his Mary thing so he can quit blabbing?

phantaz sunlyk

January 30th 2003, 10:51 PM

**8** wussup maTILLda? i was wondering where you studied logic--the specific science of logic? and also, if you're an English teacher, then i assume that you have some familiarity with art, etc.? so, what appeals to your aesthetic appetite?

That so many of you in this forum would consider this cracker-jack apologetics speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.

**7** just out of curiousity, what if a person were to divide the possible modes of biblical innerrancy into distinct categories, such that (as far as historio-physical facticity goes) the death and rez were to be placed in the center, with other events surrounding this diadic nucleus-their position determined for theological or other reasons-as concentric circles.
hence the historicity of the rez would be affirmed, and the narrative within the gospel which is wrapped around this historical fact is a conjunction of the actually historical with the extrapolation therefrom of token actions which may be filled with particularity according to either particular historical concerns or universal theological concerns? is this a possibility?
if this were possible, then Scripture could be understood as the medium whereby God the Word is encountered. the complaint that this 'liberalizes' Scripture COULD NOT be brought forward uncritically in this case, for the simple reason that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Rez stand as the necessary precondition for this view of Scripture.
so, i ask you, ferrell till, whether or not it is possible to accept this view of Scripture whilst simultaneously affirming infallibility?
furthermore, i ask whether or not it is possible to be a Christian while believing that the Bible is only 99.99999999999% accurate?
incase you're wondering, i'm an inerrantist of the Origenist bend.
peaceouttttttttttttttttttt.

Jaltus

January 30th 2003, 10:56 PM

Actually, I have answered him and he refuses to respond.

I pointed out the fact that the aorist tense does NOT mean what his web based "experts" tell him. I have pointed out the fact that I already teach Greek at the graduate level. Frankly, I think he does not like aonyone who holds a Ph D. because he does not know what it takes to get one, or why didn't he get one?

Frankly, Mr. Till, I am a young person, only 27. However, I already hold my fair share of degrees from some nice places. Does that mean I am smart? Not necessarily (though I doubt many people would have done my undergrad program), since anyone these days can graduate from college with a hemisphere tied behind their back. At the same time, being a retired college prof is equally worthless to you, since we are debating something I actually know and you truly don't. Oh, I'll amdit you seem to know your Bible, but you really know little or nothing about Greek. I wonder if you even have an NA 27 or know what it is, even though it is the standard Greek NT.

Considering the fact that you think the internet is a serious research tool for studying language, I question how much you really even understand this discussion.

Until you actually pull yourself together and answer my post about Verbal Aspect Theory, I'll know for a fact that you are intellectually dishonest.

Right now I am just guessing at it.

By the way, doing that grammatical nit-picking (nits are like gnats, only smaller) just shows that you feel the need to divert attention from the body of your post. either that or you feel like you know me well enough to correct me, which obviously you do not.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 12:50 AM

Freak:
Ferrell--

Jesus loves you and desires to have a personal relationship with you. I have read on your profile that you were once a pastor. I assume you know something about God. Well, this God loves you and cares for you. But time is running out. We are but a breath away from entering eternity.

I understand you are looking for answers. But, the fact is, you will never attain the answers that your heart desires. You are but a human, an imperfect one (as we all are) at that. So, you will fail in attaining all the knowledge that you desire. But this reality does not call in question God's deep love for you and your family.

Freak, I understand your concern, because I was once where you are now. I didn't go overseas to do missionary work because I had no concern for the "salvation" of people; it was because of that concern that led me to do this. However, I have never been as sure of anything as I now am that you and those who believe like you are suffering under a delusion, so you need not be concerned about me. There isn't a chance in the world that I would ever go back to all that again. To adapt an expression from the Bible, if I did go back, I would feel like a dog turning to his own vomit again and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire. I will be 70 years old in two months, but I have absolutely no fear of death. The fact is that the thought rarely ever crosses my mind. I am infinitely more happy and satisfied with my life than I ever was when I was shackled to fundamentalist religion, and I receive this same testimony from the many people who break its bonds too.

At any rate, I appreciate your concern, and I understand it. However, I am here to see if Bible believers can defend the inerrancy doctrine. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that they can. Can you, by chance, explain the Mary Magdalene Problem? If so, I'd like to see your solution.

I might add here that I often receive messages like yours, and I generally tell those who send them that if they expect me ever to return to biblical belief, they will have to give me reasonable evidence that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." Needless to say, none of them ever tries.

Oh, by the way, you misspelled my name. The first vowel is an "a."

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 01:08 AM

There you have it, Till wants inerrancy explained by chance, not by exegesis.

How the blazes do you put "There isn't a chance in the world that I would ever go back to all that again" together with "if they expect me ever to return to biblical belief, they will have to give me reasonable evidence that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." " - so, logically, "reasonable evidence" does not exist in the world.

Farrell Till, everybody! :yipee:

from Guy

smilax

January 31st 2003, 01:08 AM

Farrell Till:
I am infinitely more happy and satisfied with my life than I ever was when I was shackled to fundamentalist religion, and I receive this same testimony from the many people who break its bonds too."Happier," not "more happy." And how does infinite happiness feel anyway?

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 01:17 AM

Farrell,

It is not that people do not try to defend inerrancy, it is that they do, and their answers are not acceptable to you. Please explain to the board what you think inerrancy is, the methodology used to reach this conclusion, and who you think are the best defenders of this (those you have a hard time refuting.)

Thanks, from Guy

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 01:32 AM

**8** say hey, wussup ghost?
ya say--

I have never been as sure of anything as I now am that you and those who believe like you are suffering under a delusion,

**7** first, i would like you to explain to me your epistemic justification for believing that you existed 5 minutes ago. next, your epistemic justification for believing that 4 and 4 is eight. finally, your epistemic justification for believing that my beliefs lack epistemic warrant. finally, explain in what sense you "have never been as sure of anything as" the last of these.
ya say--

if I did go back, I would feel like a dog turning to his own vomit again and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire.

**8** aye, but a sow that has washed is still a sow.
ya say--

I have absolutely no fear of death.

**7** prolly has something to do with your having absolutely no love of life. judging from your pig-vomit religous experience, i'd say it seems to be one of your defining characteristics.
ya say--

thought rarely ever crosses my mind

**8** purple haze! :thumb:
ya say--

I am infinitely more happy and satisfied with my life than I ever was when I was shackled to fundamentalist religion, and I receive this same testimony from the many people who break its bonds too.

**7** is this that spunktacular critical logicality ya was advocating earlier? sorta like an argument from un-religious experience? if i like being shackled by it, and am also smarter than you, does that prove that it is ergo more logical to like to be shackled by religion? :banana:
ya say--

I generally tell those who send them that if they expect me ever to return to biblical belief, they will have to give me reasonable evidence that the Bible is the "inspired word of God."

**8** well, so far you're running from all of the (tough, critical, logical, reasonable, bananny-licious) questions that i ask you.
1)does the Bible require God to have a physical mouth according to the accounts of Jesus' transfiguration and baptism?
2)re possible templates for biblical infallibility?
also, the one that opened this response.
THE GAUNTLET HAS BEEN THROWN
i guarantee that you will look like a fool before you can answer any of these. that is my super-criticistic-rationalicality.
peaceoutttttttttttttt home-dawg (arf arf arf!)

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 01:34 AM

Jaltus:
Actually, I have answered him and he refuses to respond.

I pointed out the fact that the aorist tense does NOT mean what his web based "experts" tell him. I have pointed out the fact that I already teach Greek at the graduate level. Frankly, I think he does not like aonyone who holds a Ph D. because he does not know what it takes to get one, or why didn't he get one?

Jaltus, I wasn't relying on "web-based experts." The information could be copied quicker from those sources, so I used them. I too studied Greek, but I will admit that this was almost 50 years ago. However, I have retained some memory of it and have some reference works that confirmed my memory. The aorist tense, according to these sources, does not exclusively denote completed action. If you claim that it does, would you please present your evidence? I find it hard to believe that the grammar of a dead language would have changed over the past 50 years.

Frankly, Mr. Till, I am a young person, only 27. However, I already hold my fair share of degrees from some nice places. Does that mean I am smart? Not necessarily (though I doubt many people would have done my undergrad program), since anyone these days can graduate from college with a hemisphere tied behind their back.

Ah, I was 27 once, and as I look back on that time, I cringe at what I didn't know then that I do know now. You surely know from my other posts that I agree with your comments about college degrees. They really don't prove anything.

At the same time, being a retired college prof is equally worthless to you, since we are debating something I actually know and you truly don't.

Well, I have been waiting for you to establish that the aorist tense in Greek always and only denoted completed action. If you don't want to post that evidence, just send the source to me, and I will look into it.

However, I will remind you that my reply pointed out that even if the aorist in Matthew 28:8 did denote completed action, that would not support your position, because the next verse states that as they were going to tell the disciples, Jesus met them; hence, Mary M had contact with Jesus before she ran to Peter. So why did she tell Peter that the body had been stolen?

That is the question that I can't get anyone to answer.

Oh, I'll amdit you seem to know your Bible, but you really know little or nothing about Greek. I wonder if you even have an NA 27 or know what it is, even though it is the standard Greek NT.

No, I don't have that Greek NT.

Considering the fact that you think the internet is a serious research tool for studying language, I question how much you really even understand this discussion.

No, actually, I don't think that the internet is a "serious research tool." Anyone can put up a website, as the sites of Turkel and me, as well as this one, show.

Until you actually pull yourself together and answer my post about Verbal Aspect Theory, I'll know for a fact that you are intellectually dishonest.

Didn't you see my post where I said that I was unfamiliar with this theory? I asked you to state what it was, and now I will add that if you do, you should support it. Excuse me for saying that I would be disinclined to accept the unsupported word of a 27 year old, who says that he teaches Greek. I have known a lot of youngsters who "taught" Greek.

Right now I am just guessing at it.

Well, turn about would be fair play, wouldn't it? All I can do now is guess at your intellectual honesty, because I have pointed out, twice now, that even if your claim that the aorist tense always denoted completed action, it would not prove your case, because Matthew 28:9 states that as they [Mary M and the other Mary] went to report to the disciples, Jesus met them. If the argument, based on your claim about the aorist tense, is not clear, perhaps this will clarify it.

Mary M and the other Mary "ran to bring the disciples word" (v:8). You say that the running here was a completed action, but the next verse says that as they went--in other words, while they were accomplishing this "completed action"--Jesus met them, and they touched and worshiped him.

Does that clarify my argument based on your aorist claim? If so, please explain why Mary M would have told Peter that the body had been stolen, if she had met and touched Jesus while she was running to find Peter.

Is anyone ever going to answer this?

By the way, doing that grammatical nit-picking (nits are like gnats, only smaller) just shows that you feel the need to divert attention from the body of your post. either that or you feel like you know me well enough to correct me, which obviously you do not.

I guess you didn't see my other post in which I said that no offense was intended. This was the one where I mentioned that while serving on search committees at the college where I taught, I saw many applications discarded from consideration because of grammatical and spelling mistakes. I therefore consider that I am doing someone in the field of education a favor if I point out that he is making a grammatical mistake that will probably be noticed by those who are linguistically informed. I recall having told a colleague that she often used "irregardless" instead of "regardless," and when she looked the word up and saw that it was a substandard usage, she thanked me profusely, but I have also seen that many people are sensitive about their language usage and don't want to be told.

Anyway, I guess you are saying that it was okay for you to correct my Greek but rude for me to correct your English.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 01:52 AM

Punkish:
Farrell Till:
I don't recall seeing your post on the Diegesis, but perhaps you are not aware that I am not a supporter of this work.

Guy> You don't fool me, Farrell. You wrote in TSR 1995: 1, in "Mitchell Rides again" to Lindell Mitchell,

"If he wants specific references that prove the mythological background of the Jesus story, he might try Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus by William Harwood, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? by Herbert Cutner, The Myth of the Resurrection by Joseph McCabe, How Did Christianity Really Begin? by Howard Teeple, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by T. W. Doane, and The Diegesis by the Reverend Robert Taylor.

He will find plenty of material in these books to open his eyes to the real origins of Christianity, and when he has finished with these sources, I have plenty more to recommend to him. Mitchell might be surprised at what he could learn if he should ever open his mind enough to permit objective investigation."he's an expert.

Yes, you are right; I did say this eight years ago. If you want to go farther back than that, you can find articles that I wrote for religious journals that make me cringe. I'm talking about intellectual growth, Punkish. I have the intellectual freedom to change my opinions, so what I believed eight or ten years ago isn't necessarily what I believe now. I have had occasion to learn that the works of Taylor, Doane, Higgins, and Cutner were poorly researched, so I recommend that people use them with caution. I have found some problems in Harwood's and McCabe's books too. The best advice for anyone would be to check the reliability of sources before quoting them as supporting proof.

Would you agree that this is good advice, Punkish?

smilax

January 31st 2003, 01:52 AM

Farrell Till:
I therefore consider that I am doing someone in the field of education a favor if I point out that he is making a grammatical mistake that will probably be noticed by those who are linguistically informed.Actually, linguistics is far more concerned with descriptive rather than prescriptive grammar. You are just shoving pedantry down people's throats.Anyway, I guess you are saying that it was okay for you to correct my Greek but rude for me to correct your English.You are making a gross category error. You do not seem to know Greek at all, which completely screws up your understanding of the passages in question, whereas all of us are fluent in English, making the excessive whining unnecessary, as the meaning conveyed is unaffected.

GrayPilgrim

January 31st 2003, 01:56 AM

Jaltus, I wasn't relying on "web-based experts." The information could be copied quicker from those sources, so I used them. I too studied Greek, but I will admit that this was almost 50 years ago. However, I have retained some memory of it and have some reference works that confirmed my memory. The aorist tense, according to these sources, does not exclusively denote completed action. If you claim that it does, would you please present your evidence? I find it hard to believe that the grammar of a dead language would have changed over the past 50 years.

Actually, it is the field of linguistics that has completely changed. Which has led to a completely differnt outlook on how language works. Even only 20 years ago gramamr of all languages was a slave to Latin. Hence you will find gramamrs that state that have abaltive, locative and instrumentive cases in Greek when there is no distinct formal difference between say genitive and ablative. However, since Latin has them grammarians felt inclined to include them in the treatment of languages. I only use this as an example of the huge changes that have occured int he field of linguistics in only the last 20 years. Jaltus told you where you can find this system explained, Stanley Porter's works are generally the best explanation and defense of them. Like I said earlier I don't argue Greek. I just like linguistics, therefore I cannot give you a description of Greek Verbal Aspect Theory.

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 02:02 AM

Farrell "I taught English for 30 years" Till, STILL does not know that "Internet" should be capitalised, and

"Anyone can put up a website, as the sites of Turkel and me, as well as this one, show. "

That's "Turkel and I", English teacher. Doh! :homer:
Let's go back and examine some more classic Till expertise in English (Tillish? new language!)

"The information could be copied quicker from those sources, so I used them"

This after denying reliance upon "web-based experts" - but "those" must refer back to these experts, since no other source is cited. And then we get Tillisms of memory reliance first, THEN examining reference works rather than doing it the other way round ESPECIALLY 50 years after-the-fact of Greek training! :hrm:

I shall skip the Greek grammar comments as I am untrained, but we do have this funny:
"I find it hard to believe that the grammar of a dead language would have changed over the past 50 years." - well, what we do have is people publishing newer grammars with up-to-date information, possibly including discoveries unknown half a century ago, :hi:

Till mumbles "I cringe at what I didn't know then that I do know now" - and I cringe at the fact that you use this knowledge, er...spin, to confuse others, which you wouldn't have done at 27. Neither would you have cited the Diegesis, in That Silly Rag.

Richard Carrier then pops in with, "If you don't want to post that evidence, just send the source to me, and I will look into it. ", Phantaz was apparently correct calling Till a ghost, he apparently uses a ghostwriter.

Then Till takes on Jaltus' honesty, a marvellous tactic after avoiding my posts (twice) on TSR's citations of the Diegesis, and insisting Till comes clean with HIS integrity intact (which he can't) so yah, boo, hypocrite.

And we get all this stuff and nonsense about grammatical errors, when Till makes 'em all the time, as pointed out by kind folk on this forum ("PhD's" comes to mind), so Farrell's English application is herewith thrown into the green circular filing basket, and he's back in the dole queue. Good night!

:yipee:

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:03 AM

smilax:
"Happier," not "more happy." And how does infinite happiness feel anyway?

Oh, dear, I guess I can take time to give Smilax a lesson in basic grammar that he should have learned in grade school. "More happy" is perfectly acceptable grammar, and so is "happier." One can say, "This is simpler," or he can say, "This is more simple." Get a basic grammar book, Smilax, and look up what it says about the formation of the comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs.

I wish you guys were half as interested in proving my argument wrong as you are in proving me wrong in unrelated matters.

smilax

January 31st 2003, 02:09 AM

Farrell Till:
"More happy" is perfectly acceptable grammar, and so is "happier."Cite a source.Get a basic grammar book, Smilax, and look up what it says about the formation of the comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs.Well, the examples this one offers include "happier," but not "more happy," so...I wish you guys were half as interested in proving my argument wrong as you are in proving me wrong in unrelated matters.Like your favors of correcting English so that we look better to the linguistically informed, right?

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 02:10 AM

eh, old goose, are you gonna run from my spectaculicious challenge forever?

smilax

January 31st 2003, 02:22 AM

Well, I went to a different book, and it says words of two syllables or more can take "more" for the comparative, so I concede that "more happy" is within "orthodox" English. Ignoring other grammatical errors, then, Johnny, what do you say to a point-by-point debate with me?

Resolved: John Farrell Till has never experienced infinite happiness.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:24 AM

Punkish:
Farrell "I taught English for 30 years" Till, STILL does not know that "Internet" should be capitalised,

The word "internet" is a common noun not a proper noun. Regardless of the internet generation's obsession with capitalizing it, the word is not a proper noun when it refers to the electronic system by which many people communicate today.

How huge is the universe!
How huge is the internet!

Do you capitalize "universe"? If not, why would you capitalize "internet"?

Those who capitalize "internet" in every situation remind me of secretaries at the college where I taught, who invariably capitalized "president," as in, "The President will meet with the faculty tomorrow afternoon." No, no, no. 'President" is not a proper noun in this case. If a secretary had written, "The janitor will meet with the faculty tomorrow afternoon," she would never have even considered capitalizing "janitor."

and

"Anyone can put up a website, as the sites of Turkel and me, as well as this one, show. "

That's "Turkel and I", English teacher. Doh! :homer:

Is there by chance a grade-school student in this forum who can explain to poor Punkish that the objects of prepositions should be in the objective case? "Of" is a preposition, so its objects in the sentence I wrote would be "Turkel" and "me." "Turkel," of course, would be either nominative or objective, but "me" is the objective case of the first-person singular pronoun, so it should be used as the object of the preposition "of" and not "I." I fear that Punkish is regrettably a member of the present generation that is so accustomed to hearing such stuff as, "John told Joe and I that we could go with him," that he doesn't know when to use the objective case.

Tell me, Punkish, would even you say, "of I"? If not, then why would you say, "Of Turkel and I"?

Doh, Homer!

I'll be kind and not make a bigger fool of you than you have already made of yourself.

smilax

January 31st 2003, 02:33 AM

Farrell Till:
The word "internet" is a common noun not a proper noun.Not according to the American Heritage Dictionary.Is there by chance a grade-school student in this forum who can explain to poor Punkish that the objects of prepositions should be in the objective case?Sure, except I'm not in grade school.

Prepositions take the accusative/objective case. "I" is nominative. "Me" is objective. So Johnny was correct in his usage.Doh, Homer!I think the official spelling is, "D'oh."

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 02:34 AM

**7** say hey ol' boy,
ya said--

How huge is the universe!
How huge is the internet!
Do you capitalize "universe"? If not, why would you capitalize "internet"?

**8** is that the extra-super diggalicious rationisticism you was talkin' about?
how huge is the internet?
how huge is farrell till? ...
still running from my challenge, sissy-man?
peace oUUUUUtttt homeboy.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:36 AM

phantaz sunlyk:
eh, old goose, are you gonna run from my spectaculicious challenge forever?

What challenge is that? I've been coming here hoping to find a post that tries to answer "The Mary Magdalene Problem," but all I find are straw men and attempts to shift the subject to something else.

smilax

January 31st 2003, 02:41 AM

smilax:
Johnny, what do you say to a point-by-point debate with me?

Resolved: John Farrell Till has never experienced infinite happiness.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:42 AM

smilax:
Well, I went to a different book, and it says words of two syllables or more can take "more" for the comparative, so I concede that "more happy" is within "orthodox" English. Ignoring other grammatical errors, then, Johnny, what do you say to a point-by-point debate with me?

Resolved: John Farrell Till has never experienced infinite happiness.

Will I be able to use Turkel's figurative or metaphorical quibble or perhaps his it-doesn't-matter, catch-all solution? If I use the same methods that inerrantists use to explain biblical discrepancies, I guarantee you that I can prove that I have experienced infinite happiness, because "infinite" will mean whatever I say it means.

Really, Smilax, if I pandered to all of these straw men that you guys are posting, we would never get back on subject. Why don't you answer the Mary Magdalene problem, and then we can discuss other possible debates?

smilax

January 31st 2003, 02:44 AM

Farrell Till:
Will I be able to use Turkel's figurative or metaphorical quibble or perhaps his it-doesn't-matter, catch-all solution? If I use the same methods that inerrantists use to explain biblical discrepancies, I guarantee you that I can prove that I have experienced infinite happiness, because "infinite" will mean whatever I say it means.That was what I was getting at, in fact. I'm glad you see the light about pedantic literalism.Why don't you answer the Mary Magdalene problem, and then we can discuss other possible debates?I cannot answer that which does not exist.

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 02:46 AM

Farrell Till:
Yes, you are right; I did say this eight years ago. If you want to go farther back than that, you can find articles that I wrote for religious journals that make me cringe. I'm talking about intellectual growth, Bearman. I have the intellectual freedom to change my opinions, so what I believed eight or ten years ago isn't necessarily what I believe now. I have had occasion to learn that the works of Taylor, Doane, Higgins, and Cutner were poorly researched, so I recommend that people use them with caution. I have found some problems in Harwood's and McCabe's books too. The best advice for anyone would be to check the reliability of sources before quoting them as supporting proof.

Would you agree that this is good advice, Bearman?

Guy> Yes, I would. This means then, that TSR was written (up to 1995, anyway) without proper research carried out first, which is an "open mouth, insert foot" approach. I think that the wise approach is not to use Taylor, Doane etc at all.

Do you intend writing such a statement as "The best advice for anyone would be to check the reliability of sources before quoting them as supporting proof", in The Skeptical Review, and warning fellow skeptics of the potholes in said books? (For Taylor read great big chasms.)

I note you ignored 70% of my reply, including a question about this stolen body bit, and Mary M. would you mind explaining this please?

Thanks, from Guy

Piebald

January 31st 2003, 02:47 AM

Will I be able to use Turkel's figurative or metaphorical quibble or perhaps his it-doesn't-matter, catch-all solution?

You're using a quibble right now. You haven't shown that he's done anything arbitrary. In fact he's cited an expert source to support his case. Where's the rebuttle from you? He hasn't dodged anything, you just don't like his response.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:59 AM

ghbearman:
Guy> Yes, I would. This means then, that TSR was written (up to 1995, anyway) without proper research carried out first, which is an "open mouth, insert foot" approach. I think that the wise approach is not to use Taylor, Doane etc at all.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, Bearman. (Why am I not surprised that a categorical error like this would be made by someone who thinks that "I" should be the object of a preposition?) It means that I made some mistakes at that time. I'll give you a clue too. I have made mistakes since then too. I'll also give you another clue. I'll make more mistakes and errors in judgment in the future. After all, I am not a biblical inerrantist.

Is it your position that you just don't make mistake?"

Do you intend writing such a statement as "The best advice for anyone would be to check the reliability of sources before quoting them as supporting proof", in The Skeptical Review, and warning fellow skeptics of the potholes in said books? (For Taylor read great big chasms.)

Well, actually I have posted such warnings on II_Errancy. The Skeptical Review is no longer published in hardcopy.

Do you think that you should advise Christians to be careful in the way that they use books by Josh McDowell or Norman Geisler?

I note you ignored 70% of my reply, including a question about this stolen body bit, and Mary M. would you mind explaining this please?

Thanks, from Guy

Where was that? I assume you see that I have been very busy replying to all of the straw men, which I intend to minimize from now on to try to focus attention back to the issue everyone seems eager to ignore, so I'm sure there are many posts that I haven't gotten to yet.

If you will post the reply again, I'll get to it if you will agree to then reply to the Mary Magdalene problem and explain why a woman who had met the risen Jesus and even touched him would have later said that his body had been stolen from his tomb.

Do we have a deal?

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 03:06 AM

Hamster:

Till:
Will I be able to use Turkel's figurative or metaphorical quibble or perhaps his it-doesn't-matter, catch-all solution?

Hamster:
You're using a quibble right now. You haven't shown that he's done anything arbitrary. In fact he's cited an expert source to support his case. Where's the rebuttle from you? He hasn't dodged anything, you just don't like his response.

I have written a long, detailed reply to it that blows his quibble out of the water. It will be posted at The Skeptical Review Online, but it is much too long to post here. If you care to see it, I will be glad to send it to you as an attachment.

Besides, I'm going to wrap up replies to all the straw men you guys are setting up. If I don't, I'll never get you back to the issue that you are all evading.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 03:10 AM

Demolition Man:
Will someone just answer Till about his Mary thing so he can quit blabbing?

Here is a rather obvious question. Why don't you do it?

Piebald

January 31st 2003, 03:13 AM

I have written a long, detailed reply to it that blows his quibble out of the water. It will be posted at The Skeptical Review Online, but it is much too long to post here. If you care to see it, I will be glad to send it to you as an attachment.

I have sincere doubts that your Ezekiel paper will do much to refute the likes of The Syrian Christ. Incidental details in a report -- which would be dismissed using ma besay-il --- are not the same as contradictions to the law and theology. To argue such would be a gross caricature Holding's argument. That was the major issue keeping Ezekiel out of the canon: contradictions to the Law and theology. Not incidental details of report.

If I've inadvertantly woven a straw-man (a caricature of your argument), I apologize. Obviously I have not read it yet, and am not privy to the fine details. I'll also understand if you do not want to reveal these details until you've uploaded it.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 03:13 AM

phantaz sunlyk:
eh, old goose, are you gonna run from my spectaculicious challenge forever?

And just what challenge is that? Are you by chance going to answer the Mary Magdalene Problem?

I'll make a deal with you. If you will reply to the Mary Magdalene problem, I will accept your challenge if it pertains to biblical inerrancy.

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 03:17 AM

Till>
The word "internet" is a common noun not a proper noun. Regardless of the internet generation's obsession with capitalizing it, the word is not a proper noun when it refers to the electronic system by which many people communicate today.

Guy> I looked this up in the New Oxford English, Mirriam-Webster, New American Heritage and Webopedia Dictionaries, and ALL of them capitalise "Internet", what's your source for treating this as a common noun, Farrell?

Alright, I was wrong about prepositions; I admit it and take back my comment. Now, when are you going to admit to your "I would have to pay 90% of the cost of maintaining [Holding's] website" gaffe?

I'm notching up the sections of posts that you ignore, too. Hey, JP, I would like to post some more trophies on your website.

from Guy

Gavin

January 31st 2003, 03:47 AM

Dear Mr. Till:

It is nice to have you on the forums. This thread has developed rapidly and I have not a chance to follow it. I will try and read through things and post if I have some time.

My question for you is simple: has your rejection of innerancy led you to reject of all of Christianity, or just fundamentalist Christianity? IOW, would you still call yourself a Christian (albeit a liberal one).

If you have indeed rejected all of Christianity, what do you think the C. S. Lewis view? He rejected innerancy but was still a Christian.

Freak

January 31st 2003, 09:15 AM

Farrell Till:
Freak, I understand your concern, because I was once where you are now. I didn't go overseas to do missionary work because I had no concern for the "salvation" of people; it was because of that concern that led me to do this. However, I have never been as sure of anything as I now am that you and those who believe like you are suffering under a delusion, so you need not be concerned about me. There isn't a chance in the world that I would ever go back to all that again. To adapt an expression from the Bible, if I did go back, I would feel like a dog turning to his own vomit again and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire. I will be 70 years old in two months, but I have absolutely no fear of death. The fact is that the thought rarely ever crosses my mind. I am infinitely more happy and satisfied with my life than I ever was when I was shackled to fundamentalist religion, and I receive this same testimony from the many people who break its bonds too.

At any rate, I appreciate your concern, and I understand it. However, I am here to see if Bible believers can defend the inerrancy doctrine. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that they can. Can you, by chance, explain the Mary Magdalene Problem? If so, I'd like to see your solution.

I might add here that I often receive messages like yours, and I generally tell those who send them that if they expect me ever to return to biblical belief, they will have to give me reasonable evidence that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." Needless to say, none of them ever tries.

Oh, by the way, you misspelled my name. The first vowel is an "a."

Farrell--

In the words of Jesus, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Farrell, if you reject Christ, then God's wrath remains on you. But, the good news however is this: God loves you and desires to place His assuring love in your heart.

You said: "but I have absolutely no fear of death."

I assume you don't fear death because you are aware of your eternal destiny? You are but a breath away from eternity.

You asked me: "Can you, by chance, explain the Mary Magdalene Problem? If so, I'd like to see your solution."

I don't see it as a problem. So, what would you like for me to say? Humans are limited in their knowledge of the things of God, Farrell. This will never change. There are many questions left unanswered but this fact does not alter my faith.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 10:26 AM

After years of dealing with John, here's what is likely to happen:

1) He will continue to re-ask the same question as though it has not been answered. He finds that this convinces his usual readers that no answer has been given.

2) He will have his article posted on TSR.com with no recognition of what has been said here. He may post an article later in which he addresses what happened here but will focus extensively on how people argued about his spelling, grammar, etc. -- though not noting that he brought up the first such complaint.

3) He will continue to question Jaltus' (and GP's) expertise and training and not actually answer their arguments. For of course he can't.

Note well that this is a man who thinks that it is impossible for anything new to be learned about a "dead language", as we have seen. Apparently all those Biblical journals on philology are full of essays about scholars' summer vacations. :hrm: He has asked me in articles why Bible translations composed in, i.e., 1992 were not in step with linguistic research I cite...done in, i.e., 1997.

As I said -- get used to it. It's all familiar turf for me. :)

JP

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 12:34 PM

Punkish:
Till>
The word "internet" is a common noun not a proper noun. Regardless of the internet generation's obsession with capitalizing it, the word is not a proper noun when it refers to the electronic system by which many people communicate today.

Guy> I looked this up in the New Oxford English, Mirriam-Webster, New American Heritage and Webopedia Dictionaries, and ALL of them capitalise "Internet", what's your source for treating this as a common noun, Farrell?

The rules for capitalization are my source, Punkish. No grammar or spelling rule could cover every possible example, and so one has to analyze situations and apply the rules accordingly. To do that, one must understand the rules. I do understand the rules for capitalization, but the internet generation that is responsible for the trend to capitalize "internet" apparently doesn't understand it.

I posted an explanation in which I used "president" as an example. "The president will address the nation tonight." There is no reason to capitalize "president" here, because it is being used as a common noun. When used as a "common" noun, it should not be capitalized any more than "chairman" or "secretary" should be capitalized when they are being used as common nouns. I realize that this may be hard to understand by someone who doesn't know that the objects of prepositions should be in the objective case, but I will try to help you as much as I can with simplified explanations that I always used on my linguistically challenged students. If the definite article "the" appears before a noun in question, it is probably not being used as a proper noun and should therefore not be capitalized. "The president of the college has resigned." "A meeting of the committee has been convened by President Jones." See the difference, Punkish? No? Well, I didn't think you would. One who thinks that "of Turkel and me" should be "of Turkel and I" is probably one of the linguistically challenged.

Yes, I know that dictionaries capitalize "internet," but dictionaries merely reflect common practices. Some dictionaries are now recognizing such spellings as "non-smoker," "re-examine," and "post-trauma" when the longstanding rule has been that prefixes like "non-" and "re-" and "post-" should be added to root words without hyphenation.

One of the tragedies of language evolution,Punkish, is that the linguistically ignorant almost always have more influence on changes than the linguistically informed. In the end, you and your ilk will probably win out in most of these situations.

Alright, I was wrong about prepositions; I admit it and take back my comment. Now, when are you going to admit to your "I would have to pay 90% of the cost of maintaining [Holding's] website" gaffe?

I'm notching up the sections of posts that you ignore, too. Hey, JP, I would like to post some more trophies on your website.

Well, Punkish, "all right" is spelled as two words. Look it up in your dictionary. The linguistically uninformed usually spell this "alright," so do you see why I don't put much stock in your opinions about language matters?

When you post that trophy on Turkel's website, would you do me a favor? If you are going to take the position that his condition for debating me meant only that I would have to pay 90% eight years in advance for the cost of how much space my articles would occupy on his site, would you explain how he was going to determine how much space would be occupied during those eight years by articles that had not yet been written? I would really appreciate it if you would send me that explanation. I have asked Turkel for an explanation several times, but I have asked Turkel for explanations of a lot of things that he has never sent me. Maybe someone who doesn't know when to use "me" instead of "I" will be able to explain it.

When I engage in wars over linguistic matters with the likes of Turkel and you, Punkish, I always feel as if I'm fighting unarmed men. Exposing your ignorance has been fun, Punkish, but unless you should by chance be right in anything else you post about my language usage, I won't bother to reply to you, because I want to devote my time to trying to get some of you would-be apologists to answer the argument I have posted. If you should happen to be right in any linguistic matter you post--and from what I have seen so far, the chances of that are very remote--I will, of course, reply and admit that you are right.

GrayPilgrim

January 31st 2003, 12:47 PM

First of all you are discussing morphology and semantics, about which you seem to be excessively pedantic . What I and others have been arguing for is syntax.

Besides:

One of the tragedies of language evolution, Punkish, is that the linguistically ignorant almost always have more influence on changes than the linguistically informed. In the end, you and your ilk will probably win out in most of these situations.

You may see it as a tragedy, but it is a change, and therefore to require one to use outdated style rules is childish.

I find it odd that the man who accuses others of going into so many rabbit holes, is the creator of so many of them, and that when they answer your sub questions you accuse them of ignoring the question. Regardless of your understanding of VAT, Jaltus has already given a viable answered. Moreover, in debates of logic it is generally understood that all one person has to do is give A viable answer. You unfortunately fail to understand this, which IMHO makes debating with you a rather redundant endeavor

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 12:52 PM

jpholding:
After years of dealing with John, here's what is likely to happen:

1) He will continue to re-ask the same question as though it has not been answered. He finds that this convinces his usual readers that no answer has been given.

Well, gee, Turkel, if the argument has been answered, why don't you reply to this with a reposting of the answer? Don't tell me that you don't know how to cut and paste because you have proven yourself to be very skilled at it.

Turkel thinks that if he repeatedly says, "I have answered that," his usual readers will believe that he has.

Mary Magdalene saw an angel who told her that Jesus had risen and that she should go tell the disciples that Jesus would go before them to Galilee.

Mary M ran to tell the disciples this.

As she went to tell the disciples, Jesus met her, and she touched him and worshiped him.

Yet Mary M found Peter and told him that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

Why?

Just where has this problem been explained?

Point me to it with one of your cut-and-pasted jobs, Turkel.

Most of your "usual readers" will be swayed by your sarcastic, insulting, derogatory rhetoric. I readily admit that, because their posts here show that they are on your same "apologetic" level and think that smily faces, grinning faces, and dancing bananas will substitute for logical argumentation. However, do you have no interest in those who may just be lurking here watching the show to see if they can find any serious support for the Bible? I have had a few of your readers come over to II_Errancy and tell me that your evasion and rhetorical style convinced them that you had no real proof of biblical inerrancy.

GrayPilgrim

January 31st 2003, 12:59 PM

Earlier, didn't someone talk about the reference to authority being invalid? Then did not htis same person say, I had some people come over..." Wow I am convinced, b/c someone I don't know supposedly did this! Names, man gives us their names, and give us proof that they held to a rational form of innerancy prior to it. If all you have is a straw man to begin with its pretty easy to set that baby afalme.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 01:09 PM

Oh! Oh! He seen the light!

for debating me meant only that I would have to pay 90% eight years in advance for the cost of how much space my articles

What? You finally figured out it wasn't the WHOLE website I was asking you to pay for 90% of? That took over 6 months!

would occupy on his site, would you explain how he was going to determine how much space would be occupied during those

Gee, John -- all articles on websites are measured in bytes. Each byte takes up space on a server. Simple math enables one to calculate how much an article "costs" pro rata to occupy space.

eight years by articles that had not yet been written? I would really appreciate it if you would send me that explanation. I have asked [Holding] for an explanation several times, but I have asked

You didn't ask for dip. If you had then why did you go ahead and calculate the 90% figure in TSR? :hrm:

I always feel as if I'm fighting unarmed men

Reason for this:

http://www.geocities.com/sgraessle/folder1/incomp.htm

John's personal psych profile online! :rofl:

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 01:15 PM

John plays dumb again to escape his predicament --

if the argument has been answered, why don't you reply to this with a reposting of the answer?

The same reason it's useless to hit a mule on the right ear with a brick if you already did it to his left ear. You have clicking skills. Try again.

[Holding] thinks that if he repeatedly says, "I have answered that," his usual readers will believe that he has.

The old "I'm rubber you're glue" game, Johnny? Too late. I got dibs. :yipee: And all the people here see through your smoke and cracked mirrors.

posts here show that they are on your same "apologetic" level and think that smily faces, grinning faces, and dancing bananas will substitute for logical argumentation.

They do make for fine accessories to make the hard-headed egotists here lose their cool.

However, do you have no interest in those who may just be lurking here watching the show to see if they can find any serious support for the Bible? I have had a few of your readers come over to II_Errancy and tell me that your evasion and rhetorical style convinced them that you had no real proof of biblical inerrancy.

Gimme names and dates. I can check the errancy archives. Only one that comes to mind is Matt Green, and he can't read well either. Here's a hint, John: He's using you to justify a position he wanted to believe already. I saw his little confession about his family. He was using me before, and he's using you now. Matt's a user. And based on his performance on Errancy I ought to send him some money to buy some Chap Stick.

Why not invite him over here to debate Abiathar? I can start on it next week.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 01:22 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Regardless of your understanding of VAT, Jaltus has already given a viable answered.

And I have replied to his viable answer to show that it doesn't explain the problem. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that the aorist tense in Greek always denoted completed action, so for the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. That would mean that Matthew 28:8, which says that "they ran to bring word to his disciples" was a completed action, but even if that is so, the next verse states that as they went--in other words, as they were doing this action that Jaltus claims was stated in a tense denoting completion--Jesus met them, and they touched him and worshiped him. Yet, according to John's version, Mary M (who had seen and touched Jesus as she was engaged in the action that Jaltus says was stated in completed form in Matthew 28:8) told John--after she had completed the action of running to take word to the disciples--that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

So the problem is still there, GP. When has Jaltus or you or anyone else explained this?

Moreover, in debates of logic it is generally understood that all one person has to do is give A viable answer. You unfortunately fail to understand this, which IMHO makes debating with you a rather redundant endeavor

No, GP, you fail to understand the absurdity of this common apologetic claim that if one gives a "possible" explanation of a biblical discrepancy, then there is no discrepancy. This is fallacious reasoning, for if one gives a "possible" explanation, all he has done is give a "possible" explanation, but it would still be "possible" that there is a discrepancy. If not, why not?

If what you say is logically true, then there would be no such thing as discrepancies, inconsistencies, and errors in any written document, because no matter how glaring mistakes and inconsistencies may be, one can always postulate a "possible" explanation that would remove the discrepancy.

If you don't believe this, just post what you consider to be an error or inconsistency in any written document whose author is not still alive to clarify his meaning, and I will use common apologetic methods to give "possible" explanations of the error. You would then have to admit that your own logic stated above would prove that I have shown that the error or inconsistency doesn't exist. If you would just think for a moment about the opposite of your claim, then you should realize just how weak your argument is. If I should say that if I can show a viable discrepancy or error in the Bible, this would prove that it is an error or discrepancy, wouldn't you be able to see the fallacy in my reasoning?

In other words, GP, I am saying that your position on "viable explanations" makes the existence of errors and discrepancies impossible in any written document. Since we know that errors and mistakes in written documents do occur, we can know that your "viable-explanation" claim is logically unsound.

GrayPilgrim

January 31st 2003, 01:23 PM

What's the "deal" with Abiathar? Is it a text-critical probelm? If that's all it is then no need to reply.

Demolition Man

January 31st 2003, 01:42 PM

Mr. Till, I would answer you if I could. BUT, I'm a spectator. I mostly come on this forum for fellowship with people and to see some debates. I'm just a little ol' 19 year old who has only just tapped the surface of apologetics. HOWEVER, I will answer one thing you said. You said that you were totally happy with being freed from fundamentalist religion...well...that holds no value to me, because I know many Christians who are totally happy as well. And you'd be a very arrogant man to say something like, "Well, if they'd be honest and really study the Bible, they wouldn't be like that."(which is something I've seen on one of your debates). You have no idea what's going on inside the heart and soul of Chrisitians. You haven't been inside anyone but yourself, so you can't claim that they're all being dishonest just because something like that happened to YOU--one man in the whole world. So your talk about that stuff doesn't do much for your position. By the way, JP, have you given Till an answer? I really wish someone would. I like bananas.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 01:48 PM

jpholding:
Oh! Oh! He seen the light!

for debating me meant only that I would have to pay 90% eight years in advance for the cost of how much space my articles

What? You finally figured out it wasn't the WHOLE website I was asking you to pay for 90% of? That took over 6 months!

would occupy on his site, would you explain how he was going to determine how much space would be occupied during those

Gee, John -- all articles on websites are measured in bytes. Each byte takes up space on a server. Simple math enables one to calculate how much an article "costs" pro rata to occupy space.

So how would you have been able to calculate eight years in advance how many bytes would be in an eight-year supply of articles that I had not yet written?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how I could have paid eight years in advance for the byte space that my unwritten articles would have taken up. I am presently writing a reply to your
article "Can't We All just Get Along"? It isn't yet finished, but would you tell me what would be 90% of the cost to post this on your site?

Come on, Turkel, tell us, and then explain how you could have calculated eight years in advance what 90% of the cost of my unwritten articles over that period would have been.

Since it can't be explained, I concluded the only logical alternative. You were demanding that I pay, eight years in advance, 90% of the cost of your website, which figure you had posted on your website in your plea for people to send $70 to $80 per year to you.

Till:
eight years by articles that had not yet been written? I would really appreciate it if you would send me that explanation. I have asked [Holding] for an explanation several times, but I have asked

Turkel:
You didn't ask for dip. If you had then why did you go ahead and calculate the 90% figure in TSR?

Since it made no sense to think that you were demanding payment in advance for articles that had not yet been written, I assumed that your condition was a demand for payment of 90% of your website cost eight years in advance. This judgment was based on knowing that you have trouble communicating clearly at times. I really don't think your communication problems result from linguistic ignorance but from your haste to crank out as much hackwork as you can. I know from my teaching experience that those who write in haste will often communicate poorly. That seems to be true in your case.

However, you know as well as I that after you claimed that you were demanding only 90% of the byte space for just the articles that I would write, I asked you to explain how you could possibly calculate how much space unwritten articles would occupy over an eight year period.

That is what you have refused to explain. Perhaps you would like to explain it now.

Perhaps you would also like to reply to the Mary M problem and explain why a woman who had seen the risen Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him would have then gone on her way and told Peter that the body had been stolen.

I'm still waiting for you to give that explanation. Keep in mind that lurkers may be watching. I have already gotten some readers from your site who saw through your evasions and sarcastic rhetoric.

Seems hardly worth the effort, given that Farrell has long since disappeared from these forums... but please don't use or guess at people's real names. Respect their decision to use a pseudonym.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:01 PM

Demolition Man:
Mr. Till, I would answer you if I could. BUT, I'm a spectator. I mostly come on this forum for fellowship with people and to see some debates. I'm just a little ol' 19 year old who has only just tapped the surface of apologetics. HOWEVER, I will answer one thing you said. You said that you were totally happy with being freed from fundamentalist religion...well...that holds no value to me, because I know many Christians who are totally happy as well. And you'd be a very arrogant man to say something like, "Well, if they'd be honest and really study the Bible, they wouldn't be like that."(which is something I've seen on one of your debates). You have no idea what's going on inside the heart and soul of Chrisitians. You haven't been inside anyone but yourself, so you can't claim that they're all being dishonest just because something like that happened to YOU--one man in the whole world. So your talk about that stuff doesn't do much for your position. By the way, JP, have you given Till an answer? I really wish someone would. I like bananas.

Well, of course, there are Christians who are happy. I would never say otherwise. I was happy as a Christian and foreign missionary for a time, but when I began seeing all of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Bible, I was pretty miserable, because I didn't know how to escape from the situation I was in without disappointing a lot of friends and relatives. I'm sure you would agree, wouldn't you, that there are also a lot of happy Muslims and Hindus? The happiness of a person with his belief system proves nothing one way or the other. I stated that I was deliriously happy with my present situation only because there are so many believers who think that skeptics lead gloom-and-doom lives. It isn't so.

I do hope that you will continue to look for the answer I have been asking for. Why would Mary M, who saw and touched the risen Jesus, have gone on her way to "tell the disciples," as the angel had instructed her, and said to Peter and "the other disciple" that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Because of your age, I won't press you for an answer, because I know that your biblical background is probably limited.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 02:11 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Earlier, didn't someone talk about the reference to authority being invalid? Then did not htis same person say, I had some people come over..." Wow I am convinced, b/c someone I don't know supposedly did this! Names, man gives us their names, and give us proof that they held to a rational form of innerancy prior to it. If all you have is a straw man to begin with its pretty easy to set that baby afalme.

The fact that some of Turkel's readers have told me that they saw through his evasion and sarcastic rhetoric doesn't prove anything except that they were deconverted by what they saw on his website. I never intended this as any kind of argument but a simple statement of fact: some are not swayed by Turkel's tactics, which I see that many in this forum try to mimic. I don't doubt that it feeds his ego, but it doesn't answer arguments of the opposition.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the Mary M problem, so please don't talk to me about "straw men." The posts in this forum have been filled with them.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 02:23 PM

GrayPilgrim:
What's the "deal" with Abiathar? Is it a text-critical probelm? If that's all it is then no need to reply.

GP,

More like historical. John and I have had this out; it has to do with Jesus' reference to Abiathar in Mark and that Ab was not "high priest" at the time of Nob. I replied with Casey's answer referring back to the Aramaic. You can see how John tries to excuse his way out of this:

http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 02:26 PM

By the way, JP, have you given Till an answer? I really wish someone would. I like bananas.

I have, but he pretends it isn't one. The answer I gave at http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html -- which stared this thread -- has remained untouched other than by a false analogy to a workover of Ezekiel, which subsequent replies in this thread have addressed and Till has ignored. You may need to start all the way back at the beginning to get it all in view. L)

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 02:34 PM

Geez, I thought you were sharp with computers, John!

So how would you have been able to calculate eight years in advance how many bytes would be in an eight-year supply of articles that I had not yet written?

D'oh, I wouldn't calculate until you SENT ME the article, John. Once you sent it I would have done the calculations and given you a figure. I wanted pay in advance for the 8 years, just like I said -- not in advance of the article! Yeesh!

Since it can't be explained, I concluded the only logical alternative.

The "logical alternative" that missed that little phrase, "the costs of hosting any item he submits" and beyond that it says, "the amount would have to be determined based on going rates for server space and the length of the article written," which anyone with sense will read as saying that I would have the info IN HAND to make a determination. Now why don't you just quit the skilled rationalizing and admit you made an enormous and embarassing reading error? :rofl:

You are certainly a whiz at grinding out excuses, that's for sure!

I know from my teaching experience that those who write in haste will often communicate poorly.

And we ALL know from your bio that you are a "skilled rationalizer". This is just another one of those times.

Perhaps you would also like to reply to the Mary M problem and explain why a woman who had seen the risen Jesus, touched him, and worshiped him would have then gone on her way and told Peter that the body had been stolen.

It's been explained 500 times to you. The contrived nature of the account means it is not to be read as a literal and exact report, and this in line with the "incidental details" issue that Punkish keeps pointing you to, and you keep ignoring like the Plague.

I'm still waiting for you to give that explanation. Keep in mind that lurkers may be watching. I have already gotten some readers from your site who saw through your evasions and sarcastic rhetoric.

Just the one so far that I named before. And boy, does he have a lulu of a personal story that bespeaks objectivity. He's quite nearly as good a skilled rationalizer as you are.

johnransom

January 31st 2003, 02:48 PM

Farrell Till:
And I have replied to his viable answer to show that it doesn't explain the problem. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that the aorist tense in Greek always denoted completed action, so for the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. That would mean that Matthew 28:8, which says that "they ran to bring word to his disciples" was a completed action, but even if that is so, the next verse states that as they went--in other words, as they were doing this action that Jaltus claims was stated in a tense denoting completion--Jesus met them, and they touched him and worshiped him. Yet, according to John's version, Mary M (who had seen and touched Jesus as she was engaged in the action that Jaltus says was stated in completed form in Matthew 28:8) told John--after she had completed the action of running to take word to the disciples--that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

So the problem is still there, GP. When has Jaltus or you or anyone else explained this?
All of which adds up to a big so what? You have first to show that the "they" in Matthew 28 must include Mary Magdalene. Until you do that, you have no "discrepancy" to set up for resolution.

And even if you could do that, you still lose, because the principle of dissimilarity will always defeat you.

No, GP, you fail to understand the absurdity of this common apologetic claim that if one gives a "possible" explanation of a biblical discrepancy, then there is no discrepancy. This is fallacious reasoning, for if one gives a "possible" explanation, all he has done is give a "possible" explanation, but it would still be "possible" that there is a discrepancy. If not, why not?
Doh! What GrayPilgrim was implying was (as everyone else here surely understood) that so long as there is a viable solution to a discrepancy, no evidentiary value attaches to that putative discrepancy and it must therefore be discarded from your apologetic arsenal. But then, you're not likely to do that, since every Bible contradiction brought up by skeptics has been given a perfectly adequate solution since, oh, about the time of Augustine.

If what you say is logically true, then there would be no such thing as discrepancies, inconsistencies, and errors in any written document, because no matter how glaring mistakes and inconsistencies may be, one can always postulate a "possible" explanation that would remove the discrepancy.

If you don't believe this, just post what you consider to be an error or inconsistency in any written document whose author is not still alive to clarify his meaning, and I will use common apologetic methods to give "possible" explanations of the error. You would then have to admit that your own logic stated above would prove that I have shown that the error or inconsistency doesn't exist. If you would just think for a moment about the opposite of your claim, then you should realize just how weak your argument is. If I should say that if I can show a viable discrepancy or error in the Bible, this would prove that it is an error or discrepancy, wouldn't you be able to see the fallacy in my reasoning?
Hogwash. If I were to write the sentence "Farrell Till is an idiot" :thumb:, and later in the same work the sentence "Farrell Till is not an idiot" :huh:, in such a manner and context as to make it manifestly clear that I am literal on both counts, then there is little that could be done to explain the obvious discrepancy away. Besides, the argument was in favor of viable explanations, not possible explanations, between which there is a world of difference.

As an aside, I see you continue on this forum to use JPH's real name rather than his pseudonym, as you have been requested.

dizzle

January 31st 2003, 03:18 PM

Dear Farrell and Everyone...

Sorry if someone already dealt with this, but since I have not seen that anyone has.. and MAJOR clarification is in order.

This is a Tektonics forum? I wonder why Turkel said that he was going to recommend it on his website if it is one of his forums. I would think that he would have announced it before it even got off the ground.

No this is not a Tektonics forum. JP is a personal friend of mine, has done us the much appreciated favor of providing links to this forum on his site, and that is about the extent of it. He was invited to participate here just as any other Member. I wanted to make sure that there was no confusion on this point.

Kris

January 31st 2003, 03:19 PM

Dear Mr Till

I am a history major and I remember reading some contradictory accounts of John Brown's raid against Harper's Ferry. It was written during the time and it was contradictory about the amount of men involved, who was were during the battle and exactly how it ended. So should I assume know the event never happened or its not knowable about what happened? I can still easily glean much important info
A.) John Brown attacked harpers ferry in 1859
B.) he wanted to lead a slave uprising
c.) he attack failed
d.) some of his followers were killed

Thats how I feel about the bible accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth

a.) he lived in the first century AD(from circa 6-4BCE-30-33CE)
b.) he was a radical religious leader/Miracle worker
c.) he faced death and was executed by cruxifiction
d.) his tomb was discovered empty by women( I should note if this was a lie, it would be as logical as using Blacks as witness in a trumpted up trial in Georgia during the 1930s)
e.) Jewish leaders failed to produce the body
f.) The apostles saw something that lead them to believe he had risen from the dead

If you wish to attack the histography of what I just said please explain to me why historians accept at face values documents about the life of Alexander the Great despite the fact they are four hundred past the events described, and why I should not accept bible accounts which in some cases arose less then a decade after the event in question? Lastly please explain why Christianity was ultimatelly success when other Messianic cults failed?

Kris

January 31st 2003, 03:23 PM

forgot to add, Mr Till seeing you assume the historgraphy of Jesus possible Misqoute of 1st Samuel 21 as recorded in Mark, do you accept the historgraphy of the empty tomb and women as witness to the empty tomb? If not would you please explain why you uses your historicial sources arbitarily

Freak

January 31st 2003, 03:46 PM

Farrell--

In the words of Jesus, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Farrell, if you reject Christ, then God's wrath remains on you. But, the good news however is this: God loves you and desires to place His assuring love in your heart.

You said: "but I have absolutely no fear of death."

I assume you don't fear death because you are aware of your eternal destiny? You are but a breath away from eternity.

You asked me: "Can you, by chance, explain the Mary Magdalene Problem? If so, I'd like to see your solution."

I don't see it as a problem. So, what would you like for me to say? Humans are limited in their knowledge of the things of God, Farrell. This will never change. There are many questions left unanswered but this fact does not alter my faith.

Kris

January 31st 2003, 04:15 PM

Mr Till

Have you ever watched a baseball game? I am pretty sure you have. A pitcher throws the ball and the catcher catches it. The umpire calls it a strike and the hitter protest it was a ball. We now have to disagreements over the event in question. A fan in front row saw it too and he swears it is a strike. I am at home own my coach and I see the slow motion replay and up close camera shot and I can see that it is clearly a ball. Guess what I have just produced four different opinions for one event. By your logic I should assume the event of the ball being pitched is greatly in question.

Ok lets look at the accounts in John and Matthew.
a) They all agree the tomb was empty
b) They all agree women came there first
c) They all agree they saw a resurrected Christ

I am going to use conservative dates for the two gospels and agree with traditional argument for authorship.( that is another historicial debate there) Matthew wrote his account around 65Ad. Thirty of years after the event in question. John wrote his in 85AD. I would not that by this time old age had settled in and peoples memories tend to become faulty to a point(they get confused on minor details in major events) One of them confused the Mary's, fine it is a mistake but it still does not erase the major threads I mentioned above.

On september 11th after the attacks I called my parents. I cannot recall who I called first. I might have called my National Guard unit first. For the life of me I cannot remember how it went. This I suppose puts into grave question did I make phone calls that day?

Remember what the historian Michael Grant said Mr. Till- The tomb was empty

spl_cadet

January 31st 2003, 04:18 PM

Farrell Till:
Because of your age, I won't press you for an answer, because I know that your biblical background is probably limited.

You know, just because someone is young doesn't mean that their Biblical knowledge is limited. I happen to be 16 myself (seventeen in a few days :yipee: ) but I do have a rather good knowledge of Biblical matters. Also, what's up with your calling J.P. Holding "Turkel"? I understand that that may be his real name, but it is considered a matter of common courtesy to address someone by the name that they use, whether it be a pseudonym or not. Frankly you are acting rather childish in my opinion.

Ishmael

January 31st 2003, 04:20 PM

"Out of the mouths of babes..." Mr. Till. I agree that you are quite the pompus jerk.

J. J. Ramsey

January 31st 2003, 04:28 PM

From what I've understood, Holding's argument is as follows:

[list=1]
Matthew has limited space in which to write his gospel because the scroll is only so long.
Matthew wants to include the polemic (Matthew 28:11-15) against the story that the disciples stole the body.
To make room for the polemic, Matthew collapses the resurrection account a bit, with the end result being that the reference to "the women" in Matt. 28:5 does not include "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" from 28:1.
Since this collapsing only affects incidental details that neither Matthew nor the readers of Matthew's gospel would be expected to care about, it does not constitute an error. It was an imprecision allowed by the standards of the time.
[/list=1]

From what I gather, it is the last point with which Mr. Till has trouble.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 04:37 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GrayPilgrim:
What's the "deal" with Abiathar? Is it a text-critical probelm? If that's all it is then no need to reply.

jpholding:
GP,

More like historical. John and I have had this out; it has to do with Jesus' reference to Abiathar in Mark and that Ab was not "high priest" at the time of Nob. I replied with Casey's answer referring back to the Aramaic. You can see how John tries to excuse his way out of this:

http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

No way, GP. If you want to see my reply to Turkel's "Abiathar" solution, you will have to go to <http://theskepticalreview.com/abi/abiathr1.html>, because Turkel's site will show you only what he selectively quoted (with no link to my replies). My site will show you a sentence by sentence analysis of his article and a thorough refutation of Casey's assertion.

I do hope that at least some will go to Turkel's site, read what he posted, and then go read my point-by-point refutations. It may give you an idea of just how evasive Turkel can be.

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 04:46 PM

jpholding:
I have, but he pretends it isn't one. The answer I gave at http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html -- which stared this thread -- has remained untouched other than by a false analogy to a workover of Ezekiel, which subsequent replies in this thread have addressed and Till has ignored. You may need to start all the way back at the beginning to get it all in view. L)

Yes, do go to this site and read his explanation, and then go to http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/mary/problem.html and read my point-by-point reply to his article "Tomb Visitor Checklist." (For some reason, dots... are being put in the above URL. jftill/mary/ should go where the dots are. ) My reply to this included the statement of the Mary Magdalene Problem, which you have seen here in abreviated form. This reply, by the way, cause Turkel to delete his article that I was answering. He then posted "tillmagged," which he cited above, but if you go read it, you will see that he did not address the part about the Mary Magdalene Problem.

He has not yet answered the MM problem. If I am wrong, Turkel, and your "tillmagged" did reply to this, why don't you cut and paste that reply here?

Folks, I hate to tell you, but your hero has feet of clay. Can't anyone here come to his rescue and explain the MM problem?

Jaltus

January 31st 2003, 04:47 PM

Mr. Till,

I gave you three references from which you can draw Verbal Aspect Theory. If you choose to not read what I have written, that would be your mistake.

I said:
I teach Koine Greek. There is something called "Verbal Aspect Theory" which essentially allows me to laugh at your complete lack of understanding of Greek tense forms.

Your Ph D may be in English, but my doctoral work happens to be in Greek.

I suggest you try reading something NOT ON THE INTERNET and published since I was born. How about trying Stanley Porter's Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. If that is too thick, try his Idioms of the Greek New Testament. For that matter, pick up Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar.

Or anything by Buist Fanning.
All of these have been published since approximately '75. In other words, there has been a near Copernican (sp?) revolution in understanding the Greek verbal system.

Let me give you a quote from Porter's Idioms about the aorist (pg. 35):
The aorist tense-form occurs in contexts where the user of Greek wishes to depict an action as a complete and undifferentiated process. In other words, Porter is saying that the process is a whole and uninterrupted. For more reading, I suggest his first book listed, pp. 163-239.

If you do not think I teach Greek, that's fine. Please e-mail or PM me if you want to know who I am so you can research it yourself on the web. Obviously I would request that you keep any information to yourself. However, I am unlikely to believe that you would, since you have in fact violated other people's privacy. Only a publically stated promise to not reveal who I am would in any way make me trust you, and then only sparingly.

Essentially, Verbal Aspect Theory (VAT) teaches that Greek verbs are chosen by the speaker/writer in order to convey a specific type of action and not to convey time. Research has found that diectic indicators are found outside the verb (with the exception of the future morpheme). Verbs carry no time element inherently, instead they carry the semantic weight of aspect. Since you are trained in English, I'll assume you know what aspect is.

That is a basic rundown of what VAT is.

Thus, the Greek of the text clearly shows the running back to the disciples as a COMPLETED action. It would take the imperfect (which carries the aspectual weight of an incomplete or ongoing action) to show a process that is interrupted. Thus, you are wrong about what Matthew is trying to convey.

Kris

January 31st 2003, 04:50 PM

Mr Till

Again your are being a bad historian. Accepting a Petrine connection with mark lets take note of a few things. First off Mark can date from 55-62 AD. Secondly it was not writing directly by Peter but by someone else(possibily mark from acts) recording what Peter said.

Peter is trying to recall an event from about thirty years ago. He remembered that Jesus made a point using the story in first samuel 21. He knows that Ahimelech and Abaithar are used inter changably.

1 Sam.22:20
"And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahibub, named Abiathar."

1 Sam.23:6
"Abiathar the son of Ahimelech."

2 Sam.8:17, 1 Chr.18:16, 1 Chr.24:6
"Ahimelech the son of Abiathar

So Peter simply confused 2nd Samuel with 1st Samuel those dictates the story of Jesus with the Pharisees. People describing events that happen do make errors you know

GrayPilgrim

January 31st 2003, 04:50 PM

Mr Till,

Please show the common courtesy of refering to JP Holding as JP, John, Patrick, Holding, or some combination there of as that is how he has registered here and not using his real name, which is his right to do. Even if you do not understand the courtesy it is generally preferable to refer to somebody by what they want to be called. While I do not beleive that you are interested in any nefarious purposes, as JP has told us that his wife works for a correctional institution and it is generally the legal practice to keep the personal information concealed so that ex-cons do not obtain that information and harm the family. So besides courtesy it could be a matter of a families welfare.

GP

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 05:03 PM

jpholding:
Geez, I thought you were sharp with computers, John!

So how would you have been able to calculate eight years in advance how many bytes would be in an eight-year supply of articles that I had not yet written?

D'oh, I wouldn't calculate until you SENT ME the article, John. Once you sent it I would have done the calculations and given you a figure. I wanted pay in advance for the 8 years, just like I said -- not in advance of the article! Yeesh!.

Oh, I see, you wanted pay in advance for the 8 years, but you wouldn't calculate what I owed you until I SENT YOU an article. So please explain to us how one article would have enabled you to calculate how many bytes my articles would have used over an eight-year period.

Yes, I agree, Turkel. Yeesh!

Here is your hero, folks.

Kris

January 31st 2003, 05:06 PM

Dear Till

Holding did something stupid, it happens. I dont agree with all his articles/arguments but I have learned a great deal from him. As to my questions about why you are willing to accept the Gospels accounts as accurate when they present a "problem" with christianity but you dont consider them accurate when it means your wrong in your atheism seems far more dirty and irrational then anything done by Mr Holding

Ishmael

January 31st 2003, 05:10 PM

Farrell Till:
Oh, I see, you wanted pay in advance for the 8 years, but you wouldn't calculate what I owed you until I SENT YOU an article. So please explain to us how one article would have enabled you to calculate how many bytes my articles would have used over an eight-year period.

Yes, I agree, Turkel. Yeesh!

Here is your hero, folks.

It's really that hard to figure out how to calculate it.

He can attach financial value to 1 byte of web space and then look at an article already on his site which is the same size as the one you propose to send in. Then by compasrison you get charged. It's not that hard at all.

Now, if he wanted to charge you in advance for eight years, he could go to your web site (with a gas mask on) and get an average of all your articles' sizes. Then he could average out how much rhetoric you spew out per month. Multiply the size by volume then multiply that by 12 and then by 8.

Math is not your thing I take it.

spl_cadet

January 31st 2003, 06:15 PM

Farrell Till:
I do hope that at least some will go to Turkel's site, read what he posted, and then go read my point-by-point refutations. It may give you an idea of just how evasive Turkel can be.

You know, I tried going to your site once to see what the full article was, but it was such a bad experience I'm not doing it again. Very few people enjoy reading articles which are spread out over a dozen or so segments each made up of a couple pages. Add in that most of of the first couple segments was simply your making fun over catching him in a bit of minor hypocrisy (about saying "we" in the article as I recall) and that you kept harping on about it, which made you look rather childish and petty by the way, it really isn't worth the amount of time that you have to spend to read the stuff.

Demolition Man

January 31st 2003, 07:18 PM

Till, how does the Mary problem cause such a great fuss to you? What about the rest of the gospels? Seems to me that this one problem(which has been answered by...let me count..I suppose two others on here besides JP{and does it make you feel cool to call him 'Turkel'?}) does not throw the whole gospel into question. Also, do you know that not even inerranists think that the Bible as we have it now is totally free of (for lack of a better word) problems? Look up what the definition of "inerrancy" means. Another thing, what problem is Christianity causing to the world if...according to you...it's wrong about the inerrancy thing? I haven't seen any Christian messing up the world because they believe the Bible is God's word. What about that? Why aren't you parading around talking about other religions? The Hindu scriptures and the Muslim scriptures are not free from "error" for sure, but you don't seem to think that matters. Just Christianity. Even your site only has articles against Christianity and nothing else. I find that a LITTLE bit strange.

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 31st 2003, 08:36 PM

:hi: Farrell,

This will be my last post to you, since you consider pedantry a means of argumentation, and repeating one's opponents' errors after admission, while ignoring key questions ("please define inerrancy", page 8 of this thread), which I consider poor manners.

I have researched the terms "internet" and "Internet", these are my findings.

"internet" with a lower case i refers to connecting networks of computers (network being connecting 2 computers) - an internet

and, "Internet" (capitalised) refers to the global network connection via TCP/IP, the World Wide Web being part of this (term first used 1982)

Hence it is not a grammatical problem, but one of definition to avoid confusion between the two. (source Matisse's Glossary of Internet Terms)

Farewell Farrell, it was interesting to meet you. I find you a man who scores points by evasion.

from Guy

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 08:48 PM

spl_cadet:
You know, I tried going to your site once to see what the full article was, but it was such a bad experience I'm not doing it again. Very few people enjoy reading articles which are spread out over a dozen or so segments each made up of a couple pages. Add in that most of of the first couple segments was simply your making fun over catching him in a bit of minor hypocrisy (about saying "we" in the article as I recall) and that you kept harping on about it, which made you look rather childish and petty by the way, it really isn't worth the amount of time that you have to spend to read the stuff.

So I assume you did no comparative reading to see just how much Turkel hops, skips, and jumps over. If you read very much, you surely saw that I skip nothing and that I always link to his articles. That should tell you something, Cadet, but I'm sure you missed it. If Turkel did nothing but post his grocery list, you are the type who would think that it was brilliant apologetics.

By the way, are you going to take a stab at solving the Mary Magdalene problem?

Jaltus

January 31st 2003, 09:00 PM

Mr. Till: And I have replied to his viable answer to show that it doesn't explain the problem. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that the aorist tense in Greek always denoted completed action, so for the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. That would mean that Matthew 28:8, which says that "they ran to bring word to his disciples" was a completed action, but even if that is so, the next verse states that as they went--in other words, as they were doing this action that Jaltus claims was stated in a tense denoting completion--Jesus met them, and they touched him and worshiped him. Yet, according to John's version, Mary M (who had seen and touched Jesus as she was engaged in the action that Jaltus says was stated in completed form in Matthew 28:8) told John--after she had completed the action of running to take word to the disciples--that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

So the problem is still there, GP. When has Jaltus or you or anyone else explained this?I have explained it, but you seem to miss the significance of the aspect of the aorist. If VAT is correct, then Jesus touched her in Matthew's account at the same time that John says, for Mary would ALREADY have gone back to the 12, reported, and come back to the grave site. You see, Jesus COULD NOT have interrupted her running to the 12 since the verb shows the action as COMPLETED.

In other words, the time line would be this:

Matt 28:1-8 = John 21:1-2

Then John 21:3-10

NOTE John 21:9-10!

9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
10 So the disciples went away again to their own homes.

Matt 28:9-20 = John 21:11-24

Matthew skips the intervening step because it does not add anything to his gospel. Why not get upset at John for not including the sermon on the Mount?

In other words, not everyone includes the same details in their account of things. That does not make them wrong or contradictory, only different.

spl_cadet

January 31st 2003, 09:12 PM

Farrell Till:
So I assume you did no comparative reading to see just how much Turkel hops, skips, and jumps over. If you read very much, you surely saw that I skip nothing and that I always link to his articles. That should tell you something, Cadet, but I'm sure you missed it.

1. You know, you've been told several times by the mods to refer to him by his screenname, and I've pointed out that it is rather childish to keep doing that. I suggest you change the way you refer to him forthwith.
2. Well, to tell you the truth, I never really saw you present any arguments after reading a couple sections and several pages worth so i just gave up reading it and saw that Holding was right about your articles being 90% fluff. I don't have an unlimited amount of time on my hands (I do have to attent school plus I'm involved in church and in Sea Cadets (http://www.seacadets.org) and in some amatuer apologetics work of my own) so I do have to form judgements on the worth of reading things sometimes, plus your article was rather boring with all the fluff.

However, I do agree that the refusal to link is rather stupid.

If Turkel did nothing but post his grocery list, you are the type who would think that it was brilliant apologetics.

Nope. That's Dave Armstrong's or Scott Hahn's grocery list that would merit such a reaction. :)

By the way, are you going to take a stab at solving the Mary Magdalene problem?

If I knew what the problem was. The first post didn't make too much sense to me (though that may be because I never clicked on the link).

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 09:15 PM

Your assessment of my position is substantially correct. :)

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 09:18 PM

Jaltus:
Mr. Till,

I gave you three references from which you can draw Verbal Aspect Theory. If you choose to not read what I have written, that would be your mistake.

I said:
All of these have been published since approximately '75. In other words, there has been a near Copernican (sp?) revolution in understanding the Greek verbal system.

Let me give you a quote from Porter's Idioms about the aorist (pg. 35):

Porter:
The aorist tense-form occurs in contexts where the user of Greek wishes to depict an action as a complete and undifferentiated process.

In other words, Porter is saying that the process is a whole and uninterrupted. For more reading, I suggest his first book listed, pp. 163-239.

If you do not think I teach Greek, that's fine. Please e-mail or PM me if you want to know who I am so you can research it yourself on the web. Obviously I would request that you keep any information to yourself. However, I am unlikely to believe that you would, since you have in fact violated other people's privacy. Only a publically stated promise to not reveal who I am would in any way make me trust you, and then only sparingly.

Oh, I don't doubt that you teach Greek, Jaltus. Given the number of Bible colleges in the country, there has to be hundreds of Greek teachers. You may be interested in a project that I have underway. I know a website that lists all major seminaries and Bible colleges in the United States and Canada, so I went to it this morning and started e-mailing professors who teach Greek at these institutions. I sent a short message stating that I had read on a website that the Greek aorist tense always denoted completed action. I stated that this was contrary to what I had been taught in my Greek classes in the 50s, so I asked for the professors' opinions in the matter. Late this afternoon I received my first reply from a Greek professor at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. He sent a one-sentence reply that said, "The Aorist generally, but not always, denotes completed action in the past." He has a string of degrees and received his Ph. D. from Union Theological Seminary in New York.

The first reply that I received from my inquiries stated an opinion that agrees with what I was taught in Greek almost 50 years ago. I'm sure your obsession with privacy will tell you why I won't reveal the identity of this professor, but as many inquiries as I have sent out and will continue to send, I will surely receive other replies, which I will share with you as they come in.

I did a little research of my own too, and I found that the aorist tense was used in Matthew 5:16, which says that one should let his light shine before men. In other words, the tense is expressing an action that was continued, isn't it? I was taught that this could be one function of the aorist, and it seems to me that Matthew 5:16 would be an example of it. If this is not an example of continued action, does this text mean that one should let his light shine, and then when this has been completed not to let it shine anymore?

If I should ever learn your identity, which I'm really not interested in knowing, I would respect your request that I not reveal it. What you are hearing from Turkel is very one-sided. There is much, much more to this matter of his real identity, so there are reasons why I was determined to find who he was and let it be known. There are people who could tell you that I respect confidentiality. At the moment, for example, I am corresponding with two preachers who are in the early stages of withdrawal and are asking me for advice on what to do. They trusted me not to reveal their identities, and I haven't and I won't as long as they want their situations to remain private.

I appreciate that you are making a serious attempt to reply to my argument. I will get back to the last part of your post later.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 09:19 PM

Farrell Till:
No way, GP. If you want to see my reply to Turkel's "Abiathar" solution, you will have to go to <http://theskepticalreview.com/abi/abiathr1.html>, because [Holding]'s site will show you only what he selectively quoted (with no link to my replies). My site will show you a sentence by sentence analysis of his article and a thorough refutation of Casey's assertion.

What you will see is that John F Till cut and run after being embarrassed by a social sciences expert when he tried to argue against that expert by claiming that guilt can be found all through the Bible. What you will see is that there is a direct link the to the very article above noted, this liar's claims notwithstanding. What you will see is there was no loss of quotation that made a difference to Till's inflated case.

You will see more in a moment.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 09:21 PM

He has not yet answered the MM problem. If I am wrong, Holding, and your "tillmagged" did reply to this, why don't you cut and paste that reply here?

It was answered again and again. Now JJR has summarized it again and you are without excuse.

Folks, I hate to tell you, but your hero has feet of clay. Can't anyone here come to his rescue and explain the MM problem?

I don't hate to tell anyone this, but about all Till has going for him is arrogance. His refusal to answer is obvious.

More to come.

Jaltus

January 31st 2003, 09:23 PM

I teach at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 09:24 PM

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 09:50 PM

Farrell Till:
What you are hearing from [Holding] is very one-sided. There is much, much more to this matter of his real identity, so there are reasons why I was determined to find who he was and let it be known. There are people who could tell you that I respect confidentiality

Now then.

To put it succinctly, Farrell, horse manure. I.e., you're full of the Breakfast of Chumps.

You had no reasons that were valid to know or care about my identity. You never did and never will.

My name and address are irrelevant as are all the details you published in TSR. It added not one whit to your arguments -- not that you didn't need all the help you could get! :rofl:

You don't respect anything but your own ego. So choose between your alleged integrity as a proven liar with an admitted history of skilled rationalization, or your ego.

I hereby formally request that you refer to me hereafter by some permutation of my pseudonym such as JPH, Holding, etc.

I have also just posted the following at the end of an article replying to your misplaced whines over links you apparently can't find:

"A reader recently suggested that we ought to disconnect all links to all persons -- not just McTill -- who openly disrespect me by using my real name rather than my writing name. In light of McTill's patent lies about the 90% comment above, his continuing equivocation, and his continual shifting to new topics in order to avoid the old ones he's getting licked on, thus proving he is a worthless opponent even more so than ever, I have decided that our reader is correct. Any person who shows such disrespect for a person's privacy deserves no links, and McTill will get none, unless by July 1, 2003, he orders erased or replaced all references to my real name on tsr. com. That's plenty of time to get it done, and enough time so that McTill can't whine that we are "hiding" his responses from readers. McTill wants to quote his trophy apostate? I refer in turn to a Skeptic who told me that it doesn't matter at all why I or anyone else uses a pseudonym; it should be respected even if I just like to use one. McTill has had this free ride long enough, and now it's time for the 70 year old to grow up and cease the temper tantrums. He has no excuse for not making the change and is a liar if he claims otherwise. We'll just see where his priorities lie."

I anticipate a response and the appropos answer....from the end of another item, authored by Mr. Sunlyk:

"Cry, baby, cry!" :(

Farrell Till

January 31st 2003, 09:59 PM

spl_cadet:
1. You know, you've been told several times by the mods to refer to him by his screenname, and I've pointed out that it is rather childish to keep doing that. I suggest you change the way you refer to him forthwith.

As I said to someone else earlier tonight, there is much more to Turkel's phony name than what is known to the members here. I wouldn't even waste time trying to summarize it, because the forum members would side with him no matter what.

By the way, why have you never said anything about Turkel's referring to me as "John"? That isn't my screen name. I registered as Farrell Till, an identity that I have no desire to hide. Furthermore, I have no objections to Turkel's calling me John, because that is my first name, which was the name of my paternal grandfather and some uncles. I consider it a time-honored family name. I was called Farrell only because there were so many Johns in the family, so if Turkel thinks that he is insulting me, he is very wrong.

Turkel frequently refers to me as McTill, which I don't object to, because the reason he gives for this derogatory term only shows his stupidity. When I call him Turkel, I am not trying to insult him. I am just exercising my right to express an opinion: one should not try to hide behind phonynames.

2. Well, to tell you the truth, I never really saw you present any arguments after reading a couple sections and several pages worth so i just gave up reading it and saw that Holding was right about your articles being 90% fluff. I don't have an unlimited amount of time on my hands (I do have to attent school plus I'm involved in church and in Sea Cadets (http://www.seacadets.org) and in some amatuer apologetics work of my own) so I do have to form judgements on the worth of reading things sometimes, plus your article was rather boring with all the fluff.

Ah, if you hadn't used a Turkelism at the end of this paragraph, I would have thought that you haven't read much of Turkel's works. You don't think that his constant flow of sarcasm, insults, and derogation is boring?

However, I do agree that the refusal to link is rather stupid.

I appreciate your honesty. If my articles were as bad as he lets on to his readers, he would obviously put links throughout his "replies" so that readers could access them easily and see for themselves how bad they are. He doesn't link to my replies because he knows that he is skipping most of my arguments and rebuttals and wants to minimize as much as possible the chance that his readers will become aware of this.

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 10:27 PM

**8** yo, what's shakin' ol' boy?
you ask me two thangs.
first you ask me what my challenge to you was. more below. also, you ask me to answer your "MM challenge" afor you'll respond to my challenge. very well. here is my answer to your MM challenge:
i agree with mista J. P. Holding. that answer doesn't work for you? very well, i'd also be willing to claim that the authors of the Rez stories doofed it--IF THAT IS WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY GET OFF YA 'TOOKIS AND GET SOMETHING DONE.
now, here is my challenge to you--
1)according to the NT accounts of Jesus' baptism and transfiguration (Mt. Tabor, aroooooo! St. Gregory Palamas ... over ya head ol' goose?), does God (the Father, a distinct person from Christ) have a mouth?

2)is the account(s) of biblical infallibility, briefly outlined by me on pg. 8 of this thread, a possible option for a person who wishes to be a Christian? specifically,

2a)is it possible to be a Christian and reject biblical infallibility?

3)on page 8 of this thread, you said that--

"I have never been as sure of anything as I now am that you and those who believe like you are suffering under a delusion"

--regarding the epistemic condition of we Christians. with your claim in mind, i ask you to answer the following--
first, i would like you to explain to me your epistemic justification for believing that you existed 5 minutes ago. next, your epistemic justification for believing that 4 and 4 is eight. finally, your epistemic justification for believing that my beliefs lack epistemic warrant. finally, explain in what sense you "have never been as sure of anything as" the last of these.

4)explain your reasons for using JP's real name.

peaceoutttttttt homey.

jpholding

January 31st 2003, 11:34 PM

Skilled Rationalizer rationalizes again,

As I said to someone else earlier tonight, there is much more to Holding's phony name than what is known to the members here.

There is nothing more to it. Of the dozen or so people here at least 7 know the why behind it. You have ZERO to offer as a justification and pulling the Richard Nixon "elect me and my secret plan" shebang is just more lame oatmeal from your bowl.

I wouldn't even waste time trying to summarize it, because the forum members would side with him no matter what.

Your lame excuse for not actually having anything.

By the way, why have you never said anything about Holding's referring to me as "John"? That isn't my screen name.

You answer your own question below.

thinks that he is insulting me, he is very wrong.

No, I think I am making a point. And I am. It took you until Rob Miles turned on the light to figure it out.

frequently refers to me as McTill, which I don't object to, because the reason he gives for this derogatory term only shows his stupidity

And what IS that reason? Last time you said you had no idea why I used it.

I am not trying to insult him. I am just exercising my right to express an opinion

You are exercising your jaw proving yourself to be a skilled rationalizer and a blatant manipulator. Very well, I exercise my right to express the opinion that you are actually a large goat with halitosis who has conjugal relations with household furniture. Isn't freedom to be the scum of the earth a grand thing for you, John?

one should not try to hide behind phonynames.

Who are you to decide for others what they should do in terms of their private lives? No, this is not a CoC pulpit and you are NOT authorized to impose your own cheap version of accountability. Save the righteous preaching for your own choir. And beyond "phonynames" where is the justification for posting addresses, phone numbers, places of employment -- AGAINST expressed permission?

Cut the cow manure, John. It won't get past the barn door in this context.

he would obviously put links throughout his "replies" so that readers could access them easily and see for themselves how bad they are. He doesn't link to my replies because he knows

Keep up the lies. They're all where they were promised to be. As for the rest, all should note the implicit insult to intelligence and the rampant egotism. Sad news, John: All the "choir members" here on this forum found your articles. They read them. They're still not on your side of the ideological fence. So much for your theories that if only you had a voice you'd win the day. It's just another lame rationalization for the fact that your years of effort have won you a pittance and little justification for your own apostasy.

Revolg

January 31st 2003, 11:37 PM

:yipee:

dizzle

January 31st 2003, 11:41 PM

Dear Farrell:

I hereby formally request that you refer to me hereafter by some permutation of my pseudonym such as JPH, Holding, etc.

We respectfully ask now that JP has made a clear request, that you refrain from using his real name in any form on this forum. We do not want to have to delete any posts or overreact; thus, please be on notice that if future posts do not refrain from using his real name, I will have to go in and edit such references our without further warning. I am willing to spend the time to do this to avoid having to take more drastic measures, but I would sincerely ask that you just please honor this request.

If you would like to debate on the rights or wrongs of being able to use someone's real name, or whether or not people should be allowed to use pseudonyms, I invite you to the Podium area of this Forum.

Thank you for your consideration.

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 11:43 PM

:yipee:
won't you take me to
:yipee:
fUnKyToWn!!!!!!
eh yo ol' goose, why are you blatantly avoiding answering my spunktaculicious challenge? afraid that you'll be exposed?
p s--this post took moral courage

spl_cadet

February 1st 2003, 12:09 AM

Farrell Till:
As I said to someone else earlier tonight, there is much more to Turkel's phony name than what is known to the members here. I wouldn't even waste time trying to summarize it, because the forum members would side with him no matter what.

It doesn't matter what there is to his psuedonym, you are being rude, boorish, and childish by refusing to honor not only his wishes but the wishes of the local mods in your persistance in using his real name.

By the way, why have you never said anything about Turkel's referring to me as "John"?

Because as you state yourself, you have no objection to it. I have no objection to the people on CARM calling me by my first name, even though it isn't a part of my screen name. If I did however object to it, I would expect that anyone with a modicum of etiquette to respect my wishes.

Turkel frequently refers to me as McTill, which I don't object to, because the reason he gives for this derogatory term only shows his stupidity.

Or his sense of humor.

When I call him Turkel, I am not trying to insult him. I am just exercising my right to express an opinion: one should not try to hide behind phonynames.

It doesn't matter whether you have a different opinion, he has a valid right to protect his privacy.

Ah, if you hadn't used a Turkelism at the end of this paragraph, I would have thought that you haven't read much of Turkel's works. You don't think that his constant flow of sarcasm, insults, and derogation is boring?

Actually I rather like it :) Sometimes it can be a bit annoying, but it is rather fun to see, especially as a French member of a webboard I'm on got completely slammed trying to rebut one of Holding's essays.

I appreciate your honesty. If my articles were as bad as he lets on to his readers, he would obviously put links throughout his "replies" so that readers could access them easily and see for themselves how bad they are. He doesn't link to my replies because he knows that he is skipping most of my arguments and rebuttals and wants to minimize as much as possible the chance that his readers will become aware of this.

If he skips so much of your arguments and rebuttals, why do you bother responding to his stuff?

phantaz sunlyk

February 1st 2003, 04:36 AM

**7** alas, i awake in the middle of the night to see that farry farry go go pop is still evading the issue!
:yipee:

Kris

February 1st 2003, 12:29 PM

I want everyone to notice something. Till is ignoring my post because I have basically identified him as a dirty historian.(esp in the Abaithar debate)

Till is willing to accept as historicial that Jesus misqouted 1 sam 21 but he is not willing to accept the same historicial source that says women were witnesses and the tomb was empty. He wants to accept historicial sources only piecemeal, taking the points he agrees with but ignoring the parts he disagrees with.

so I am going to ask

If you consider Mark to be a valid source then why do you deny the empty tomb and women witnesses(very odd if not true)

If you do not consider Mark to be historicial why are you using it to try to prove Jesus misqoutes 1st Sam 21

dizzle

February 1st 2003, 12:42 PM

Dear Kris:

I did notice that point you made and that it has not been addressed. It is good though that you brought it back up because so much has gone back and forth that issues can get lost or forgotten.

Hugh Slaman

February 1st 2003, 07:18 PM

This is a test.

Robin Goodfellow

February 1st 2003, 08:18 PM

Kris:
Mr Till

Again your are being a bad historian. Accepting a Petrine connection with mark lets take note of a few things. First off Mark can date from 55-62 AD. Secondly it was not writing directly by Peter but by someone else(possibily mark from acts) recording what Peter said.

Peter is trying to recall an event from about thirty years ago. He remembered that Jesus made a point using the story in first samuel 21. He knows that Ahimelech and Abaithar are used inter changably.

1 Sam.22:20
"And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahibub, named Abiathar."

1 Sam.23:6
"Abiathar the son of Ahimelech."

2 Sam.8:17, 1 Chr.18:16, 1 Chr.24:6
"Ahimelech the son of Abiathar

So Peter simply confused 2nd Samuel with 1st Samuel those dictates the story of Jesus with the Pharisees. People describing events that happen do make errors you know

Hi Kris,

I'm not clear how this makes Till a bad historian.

Your explanation seems reasonable to me, although of course the error need not have been Peter's. It could have been that of the writer of "Mark," or even of an oral or written intermediary between Peter and that writer.

But are you keeping in mind that many Christians are inerrantists, forcing them to reject the kind of common-sense assessment you've made here?

Robin

Revolg

February 1st 2003, 08:45 PM

Yes Robin only if you are a KJV-Onlyist.

Kris

February 1st 2003, 08:46 PM

I am not Christian, but I am seriously considering it. I do not see the need of inerrancy but of historicial realism and criticial soundness. The bible was inspired but written by men using many different methods. I do not see it needing to have the degree of perfection necessary in the Koran, which it is claimed was hand written by God(or was it an angel?) which would certainly require a degree of perfection....which is sorely lacking!!!!
I am accusing him of historicial dishonesty for the following reasons.
a.) he accepts the legitimacy of Mark 2:25-27 as being stated by Jesus.
b.) he has asserted at times that he does not believe that Jesus existed(if I am wrong about this one please correct me Mr. Till)
If he does not believe in the existance of Christ then surely he has to view Mark 2:25-27 and even the rest of the book of mark as spurious, therefore he is knowingly using a false document to make a historicial point. It would be little better then me using the Protocals of the Elders of Zion to make a point own Judaism.
ok lets say he does accept the existance of Christ. Then I need to ask him why does he arbitarily accepts mark 2:25-27 as historicial and not mark 16:1-8.

Kris

February 1st 2003, 08:50 PM

I say your a bad historian if you accept a document as legitimate to disprove something but you accept other parts of it as spurious when it would be a direct refutation of a stated position.

simply put either Mr Till feels that Mark is accurate and he can use it to make a debate point, and if he feels it is accurate then he needs to explain why he does not accept the existance of christ

he does not feel that Mark is accurate, then he certainly shouldnt be using it to make a point against Jesus!!(IT AINT ACCURATE!!)

You cant have your cake and eat it too

Kris

February 1st 2003, 08:56 PM

I will lastly note no decent historian throws out an entire historicial account on the account of a single error

Robin Goodfellow

February 1st 2003, 09:01 PM

Revolg:
Yes Robin only if you are a KJV-Onlyist.

Why wouldn't *any* inerrantist have this problem, Revolg?

Robin Goodfellow

February 1st 2003, 09:03 PM

Kris:
I will lastly note no decent historian throws out an entire historicial account on the account of a single error

I didn't see where he did this, Kris.

Robin Goodfellow

February 1st 2003, 09:12 PM

Kris:
I am not Christian, but I am seriously considering it. I do not see the need of inerrancy but of historicial realism and criticial soundness. The bible was inspired but written by men using many different methods. I do not see it needing to have the degree of perfection necessary in the Koran, which it is claimed was hand written by God(or was it an angel?) which would certainly require a degree of perfection....which is sorely lacking!!!!
I am accusing him of historicial dishonesty for the following reasons.
a.) he accepts the legitimacy of Mark 2:25-27 as being stated by Jesus.
b.) he has asserted at times that he does not believe that Jesus existed(if I am wrong about this one please correct me Mr. Till)
If he does not believe in the existance of Christ then surely he has to view Mark 2:25-27 and even the rest of the book of mark as spurious, therefore he is knowingly using a false document to make a historicial point. It would be little better then me using the Protocals of the Elders of Zion to make a point own Judaism.
ok lets say he does accept the existance of Christ. Then I need to ask him why does he arbitarily accepts mark 2:25-27 as historicial and not mark 16:1-8.

I don't know, Kris. I came away with the impression that all he was trying to do was prove that this Abiathar business involves a contradiction in the Bible. If a historian were to show a contradiction in the epic of Gilgamesh using similar logic, would she be a bad historian as well?

Kris

February 1st 2003, 09:17 PM

he has been qouted as saying that he does not believe in the existance of Jesus. Certainly he is throwing out an entire source if he holds to that view!! Also even though the book of Mark contains a possible error it should still be noted that it still mentions the empty tomb being found by women, a very odd lie indeed if the entire source is mythologicial about a nonexistant man

He says that the Gospel accounts are contradictory on who did what at the tomb(Geez these things were written seperately some 30 years after the event in question) Even though he has three eyewitness accounts( I do not accept that Matthew copied mark) which agree on the following key factors

a.)the tomb was empty
b.) women discovered it
c.) the apostles saw something that convinced them that Christ had rose
d.) early church traditiojn states that of the 11 surviving apostles 10 later died for their conviction
e.) far older then the Gospel accounts is the resurrection account in 1st Cor 15(35 AD)

Looking at all this how can Mr Till Possibiliy conclude Christ never existed. He is nitpicking at details knowing full well that peoples memories tend to distort minor details all the time. Read some of my earlier post. Using his methodology he would have to throw out almost every eyewitness account in history.

I will also note that unless Mr Till considers Alexander the Great to be a myth then why is he willing to accept as Valid accounts of his life(the oldest accounts are 400 years separate from the events in question)

Mr Till is being simply arbitary

Robin Goodfellow

February 1st 2003, 10:00 PM

Kris:
he has been qouted as saying that he does not believe in the existance of Jesus. Certainly he is throwing out an entire source if he holds to that view!!

What are his reasons for holding that view?

Also even though the book of Mark contains a possible error it should still be noted that it still mentions the empty tomb being found by women, a very odd lie indeed if the entire source is mythologicial about a nonexistant man

Suppose it wasn't so much a lie as an urban legend?

He says that the Gospel accounts are contradictory on who did what at the tomb (Geez these things were written seperately some 30 years after the event in question)

Again, I don't think he's complaining about the presence of contradictions in the Bible. His complaint is that inerrantists won't admit that contradictions are there, even though, as you quite reasonably point out, it's easy for errantists to understand why they would be.

Even though he has three eyewitness accounts

I think that many Bible scholars doubt that any of the Gospels were eyewitness accounts. Our earliest sources describe Mark as second-hand information from Peter. But scholars have doubts that the author was even that close to events. The late Professor Raymond Brown thought that Mark seemed to depend on Greek traditions, and also seemed confused about Palestinian geography. The _Cambridge Companion to the Bible_ says that Mark’s writing seems to have been compiled from several sources.

(I do not accept that Matthew copied mark) which agree on the following key factors

a.)the tomb was empty
b.) women discovered it
c.) the apostles saw something that convinced them that Christ had rose
d.) early church traditiojn states that of the 11 surviving apostles 10 later died for their conviction
e.) far older then the Gospel accounts is the resurrection account in 1st Cor 15(35 AD)

Looking at all this how can Mr Till Possibiliy conclude Christ never existed.

You'd have to ask him.

He is nitpicking at details knowing full well that peoples memories tend to distort minor details all the time.

Again, his only problem with with discrepancies in details is that inerrants don't admit they're there.

Read some of my earlier post. Using his methodology he would have to throw out almost every eyewitness account in history.

Kris, as far as I can tell, all we have is a quote that Till doubts the existence of Jesus. Where has his methodology been laid out so that we can see whether it would invalidate almost every eyewitness account in history?

I will also note that unless Mr Till considers Alexander the Great to be a myth then why is he willing to accept as Valid accounts of his life (the oldest accounts are 400 years separate from the events in question)

Until we know why Till doubts Jesus' existence, we won't know to what extent his logic would apply to Alexander the Great. I can only guess that part of the reason might be that we have accounts of Alexander from many sources, including those that weren't trying to sell a miraculous tale. (Incidentally, do you know for certain that the oldest accounts of his life are from 400 years later? I'd love to have a reference on that.)

Hugh Slaman

February 1st 2003, 10:03 PM

Kris,

Till is onlt accepting the existence of Jesus temporarily, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (caps for emphasis, I'm not shouting.)

The people he is arguing against DO accept the existence of Jesus. Now, when you put forward an argument intended to persuade the other person, you do so on the basis of presmises which the other person ALREADY ACCEPTS. Till's acceptance of Jesus' existence may not be anything more than this.

He could easily make the same point that he is making by inserting the trivial modification "The Gospel writers assert that Jesus said...." whenever he actually writes "Jesus said..."

Hugh Slaman :thumb:

phantaz sunlyk

February 1st 2003, 10:03 PM

**8** alas, tilly go go bop is still avoiding the issue!

brilliantly,

phantaz sunlyk

Ishmael

February 1st 2003, 10:15 PM

what is up with the *'s and numbers?

jpholding

February 1st 2003, 10:45 PM

Phantaz,

FT may be on vacation. But I'll take the interlude to make a few points.

First, he has ignored a heck of a lot of questions directed to him. Primarily from Kris I think, but also from Guy, you, and me. And more.

Second -- please note in his last reply to Jaltus (way back) that he is calling on scholars of Greek. That's a rare step when he does research, BUT he remains oblivious as he usually does to the point that his single comment from a scholar like that does not invalidate Jaltus' complex argument involving VAT, etc. It his same trick: he thinks if his argument A is refuted by detailed counter B, he only needs re-repeat A to rebut B. (Jaltus, I am sure you know this -- this is for others not familiar with FT's methodology.) His scholar would have to pointedly refute what Jaltus offered, not just quote him as a "nuh uh" and that's that. But don't hold your breath.

Oh, new smileys. Here is Till arguing: :argh:

Here is me giving Till his medicene: :bonk:

Here is what scholars think of Till's work: :rofl:

Revolg

February 1st 2003, 10:51 PM

Robin Godfellow:

Why wouldn't *any* inerrantist have this problem, Revolg?

Why wouldn't a Christian say that the KJV is God's inspired word? Every body knows the current translations of the original text are not inspired. Every smart Christian should know it has grammar errors and has picked up things that were not found in the Greek. Well anyhoo, all Christians know the original documents were inspired by God. So technically people like Farrell Till are arguing for the wrong reason.

dizzle

February 1st 2003, 10:52 PM

Also just a marginal comment. Till seemed to be relying heavily in his response to Jaltus on the phrase "and as they were on their way" to describe when Jesus met "them." However, and he will cringe when I say this, that phrase is not attested to in all the manuscripts.

I do hope Farrell is simply on vacation. We encourage his further participation here.

Hitch

February 1st 2003, 11:01 PM

Does the nonsense about only Pauls later letters applying to the church today fit into this catogory?

Hitch

Kris

February 1st 2003, 11:19 PM

Normally I dont like to link people to other website( I far prefer to do my own battles) but I want to call my significant lady(this will probably be all all nighter) other so I am going to answer the question of urban legends this way.

http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/default_files/legend.htm

Read over these and this should help you out till we meet again Robyn
:yipee:

Revolg

February 1st 2003, 11:26 PM

I do like your posts Kris. You are more open to most things here. Normally I don't reply in these things because it would be just an interruption.

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 12:13 AM

Thanks ReVolg :p

Well my favorite lady decided she was tired so it was a quick phone call.

I am going to be a bit silent for awhile, I want people who are arguing for legend to read the links I posted. Once they are read I would love to discuss them of course :yipee: :read:

Hitch of course Pauls letters still apply to the Church. Not in a social context or as a regulation but they certainly are worthy of study and they might bear weight into issues that crop up. So dont not so readily dismiss them.

dizzle

February 2nd 2003, 12:16 AM

Dear Kris:

Did I miss something.. are we on another topic now?

dizzle

February 2nd 2003, 12:17 AM

Dear Hitch:

Actually that would go in the Dispensationalism section.

Hugh Slaman

February 2nd 2003, 12:44 AM

JPH : your personal attacks on Till are becoming a little old. Caricaturing Till was only funny for a little while: we already know you don't like him, so there's no need to keep demonstrating it. Your latest comments above are just childish, and not especially amusing. I would appreciate your limiting your satire to Till's arguments, rather than silly personal attacks that degrade you just as much as they do Till.

Kris: you are seriously considering becoming a Christian, and I am seriously considering becoming a Muslim. I think we're all set for a grand old debate!

You mentioned you think the Koran is "far from perfect."

Here's an idea: why don't you pick the most impressive example of imperfection you can find in the Koran, and I will try to refute it. Sound good? It'll be good clean fun for both of us! :cheers:

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 12:45 AM

My Problem with Mr Till, Robin is that he turns minor problems into grandeous conclusions.( I will say some of his problems are really only problems in his mind though)

The question of Geography in the book of Mark has been brought up before. I will let Mr Holding do the honors here if he would be so Kind as to link an article rebutting those claims :p

Lets say the geography of Mark is a bit screwy. Remember church tradition teaches it was written in Rome. The person writing from his source and witness interviews(this case peter) not being a local made some mistakes? Does this disrupt the entire message?? Of course not

The question is did Mark have more then one source?? Of course it did!!! Mark 1:1 is a copy of an older source, another source is the writer itself and the person/people he interviewed which among them Church tradition from the earliest times indicates was Peter( at least three sources without losing any value to the witness nature of the account :thumb: )

You will Notice I work a lot with Mr Holding. He is a biblicial inerrantist and a young earth creationist. I do not agree with biblicial inerrancy, I prefer a historical soundness/reliability, especially with the NT. I am also an evolutionist.
So then if I am not an inerrantist then why do I fight Mr Till. Because he wants to see all Christianity gone, not just inerrancy. He desires to destroy the good news and hopes of almost 2 billion people.
Robin you said most Christians are Inerrantist. My dear I live in the belt buckle of the bible belt (Georgia) and I can assure you I know many christians who are not inerrantist. However it is certainly a stance on the bible one is free to take.....provided they can defend it.

I want you to see something in here though. Two christians(well one considering it) with very different views are coming together to defend the faith. Because being a christian is not a theology, science, or scripture quiz. To be a christian means to submit to the loving authority of christ within our lives, to affirm the hope of mankind in the resurrection and lastly to follow the teaching of christ(to qoute James, without works your faith is dead?

have to add these links in here also

www.theism.net former atheist intelligent design advocate
www.ex-atheist.com -Mr Holding might like this man
www.reasons.org-old earth creationist
www.theistic-evolution.com- well duh

I didnt add a young earther simply because Mr Holding is already in here. But I want everyone to notice something. Not a single person, despite drastically different views of creation, theology etc condemns someone as not being a christian because they disagree with them. To be a christian means to be a follower of christ and a believer in his ressurection

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 12:54 AM

Dear Hugh

Wow the great question of Theism, should we follow the teachings of theism as presented by Mohammed or as presented by Christ.

A debate then a merry good old affair :cheers:

I say modern scholarship has demonstrated the Koran is a product of many multiple sources, among them pre-Islamic Christian writings. I say the Koran qoutes Oral Tradition, I say these modern discoveries disprove Mohammeds account of how and received the Koran and disproves its claims of being divine and proofs Mohammed a liar.

A week then, then to battle we shall go(gives us time to research and prepare)

Hugh Slaman

February 2nd 2003, 01:11 AM

"His scholar would have to pointedly refute what Jaltus offered, not just quote him as a "nuh uh" and that's that."

Why?

I know nothing of scholarship on the Greek language. But, judging from the posts here, it seems that everyone in Western academia had a certain understanding of the Greek verbal system until the 1970s.

Now, according to Jaltus, there is a new kid on the block, a rival understanding of the Greek verbal system which has displaced the earlier one. Here is the exact quote:

"In other words, there has been a near Copernican (sp?) revolution in understanding the Greek verbal system."

Jaltus MAY be right about this. But the onus is now on HIM to prove that he is. Till is just following the understanding of Greek that has been standard for *decades* among classical scholars, and perhaps centuries: that fact *alone* gives this traditional understanding considerable presumptive authority.

Has there in fact been a near Copernican revolution in the field? If large numbers of experts say "No", then that casts grave doubt on Jaltus' claim.

THAT is the point of Till's emailing all those professors: Till wants to test Jaltus' claim that there has been a Copernican revolution in the understanding of Greek verbal forms. And rightly so.

And for that purpose, they do NOT need to come up with a pointed refutation of what Jaltus offered.

:cheers:

Hugh Slaman

February 2nd 2003, 01:22 AM

Yikes!

That's a very broad set of issues for one debate, Kris. Why don't we try to nail it down to something more specific?

I was expecting you to give me contradictions from the Quran, or something like that :-)

How about this: you show me an article, a product of modern scholarship, that you think proves that the Koran is the product of multiple sources, and we shall debate the specific arguments found therein.

Sound fair? :cheers:

GrayPilgrim

February 2nd 2003, 01:30 AM

So far one guy has supplied an answer full of equivocation, which is the way of scholars. Scholars prefer to withhold judgment, and prefer to stear clear of absolute statements. However, if you read most post 1970 NT commentaries you will see distrust of the older syntactical system. Mainly as I mentioned earlier because of a shift in the understanding of linguistics, brought on by the work of Ferdinand Saseur(sp?) from the ealrier part of the 20th Century, which came to hold sway. So that for example whereas in Greek there has been a move towards VAT in Hebrew there has begun a movement away from it. S that the work of S.R. Driver, which once was a standard is now a relic. See Tal Goldfajn's Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative published by Oxford Univeristy Press for a thorough going critique of the aspectual usage of Hebrew, although IMO her conclusion, that verbal conjugations and word order contain temporal markers is wrong. Wolfgang Schneider's Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch posits a much better text linguistic description of the enigma of the Hebreww verbal system. Besides, Till was relying an even older than 1970's take on Greek syntax. While I will not go into the details of Greek grammar, as its not my thing, I'll say that DA Carson's, Stanley Porter's and Ekhardt Schnabel's (just to name a few) acceptance of VAT demonstrates that it is not just an obscure "pet" theory of some doctoral student.

Jaltus

February 2nd 2003, 01:37 AM

Jaltus MAY be right about this. But the onus is now on HIM to prove that he is. Till is just following the understanding of Greek that has been standard for *decades* among classical scholars, and perhaps centuries: that fact *alone* gives this traditional understanding considerable presumptive authority.

Has there in fact been a near Copernican revolution in the field? If large numbers of experts say "No", then that casts grave doubt on Jaltus' claim.

THAT is the point of Till's emailing all those professors: Till wants to test Jaltus' claim that there has been a Copernican revolution in the understanding of Greek verbal forms. And rightly so.

And for that purpose, they do NOT need to come up with a pointed refutation of what Jaltus offered.
Yes and no. What I offered is now much more commonly accepted than it had been. once there was a thing called "Aktionsart," which most classicists and NT scholars understood as being the correct method, turning at least part of the way from the old temporal understanding of verbs. However, modern research has shown that there is only general time dependancy in finite forms, and that the real issue is aspect. given that there are such things as "present" morphemes that really are future in time and that there are aorists that really are present in time, it should show Mr. Till that something other than time is what the Greek verbal system is about. Still, 85% of all aorists will be in the past, but 85% is not over 95%, which is what it takes to make it a rule (or so I have been told). Therefore, something else must be going on.

I have already offered him resources to look up. These works are being published by such places as Sheffield, so I am sure that Mr. Till will readily be able to verify what I have said, unless he is only taking to people in backwater institutions. All he needs to do is hop on the B-Greek list and see how much it is a real thing. (B-Greek is a mail list for SBL members and other serious Greek scholars and invited students)

charis humin

February 2nd 2003, 01:37 AM

jaltus:

The fun part about this is we know the action of running and telling the disciples was completed because it is in the aorist tense, meaning the action is completed. If it was imperfect, then it would mean Jesus interrupted them on their way, but it is in fact not imperfect.

Is it really saying all that much? I confess I have not read Porter but the grammars I have studied give a plethora of examples that demonstrate how the aorist says basically nothing apart from the context in which it is used. And looking at Matt 28:8 I conclude nothing except that these women left the tomb in great fear and ran to tell the disciples what the angel told them.

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 01:40 AM

sounds fair.

I am mainly arguing from implication.

Mohammed Claimed that the Koran was written directly by Allah(or was it Gabriel??). Regardless of who wrote it(ArchAngel or God) a single error disproves it and if the Koran can be demonstrated to have pre-Islamic elements within it that further disproves the idea. (after all divine beings cannot make errors)

If the Koran has these problems within it then Mohammed simply was a liar.

A religion based upon two false premises(or even one) cannot be true, no matter how much one might like to believe otherwise.

Do you agree with my logic Hugh

Hugh Slaman

February 2nd 2003, 01:49 AM

Kris,

The mere fact that the Koran has a single error will disprove its claims to divine authority. Correct so far.

However, the mere fact that the Koran contains material which coincides with some of what existed in pre-Islamic times does not prove anything. What is necessary is to show that the Koran was infuenced by pre-Islamic material, and to do so without begging the question by presupposing that Muhammad was a false prophet.

OK, here's my new proposal: you write out three errors in the Koran, the most impressive you can find. And I will respond to those. We should probably do this in the Gym soon.

I will check these boards again tomorrow for your response.

Best,

Hugh

charis humin

February 2nd 2003, 01:56 AM

Hugh Slaman:

I know nothing of scholarship on the Greek language. But, judging from the posts here, it seems that everyone in Western academia had a certain understanding of the Greek verbal system until the 1970s.

Now, according to Jaltus, there is a new kid on the block, a rival understanding of the Greek verbal system which has displaced the earlier one. Here is the exact quote:

"In other words, there has been a near Copernican (sp?) revolution in understanding the Greek verbal system."

Jaltus MAY be right about this. But the onus is now on HIM to prove that he is. Till is just following the understanding of Greek that has been standard for *decades* among classical scholars, and perhaps centuries: that fact *alone* gives this traditional understanding considerable presumptive authority.

Hugh,

Despite my last reply to Jaltus I will have to back him up on this one. 30 years ago a guy by the name of Frank Stagg wrote an article called "The Abused Aorist." A lot of commentators and grammarians were making all sorts of exegetical conclusions about certain passages in the NT due to the presence of aorist verbs. Stagg's article was an attempt to set them straight.

Now, because of advances in general linguistic theories (Chomsky and Pinker come to mind) and computer software, scholars are able today to say alot more about Koine Greek than even fifty years ago.

Consider this, as recently as the 19th century everyone thought that the New Testament Greek was "Holy Spirit" Greek because it didn't resemble anything they ever saw before. All it took was some guy rummaging through a trash dump in Egypt to put that theory to rest permanently!

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 01:57 AM

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#internal

Remember Hugh only a single one, no matter how insignificant needs to hold up. Look through this list and tell me when your ready to discuss it

:cheers:

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 02:30 AM

of all the religions that currently exist only one of them required a miracle-christianity

Judaism-You dont NEED a miracle for an exodus or set of laws
Hinduism-Religious vagueness and internal incoherence
Buddhism-Philosophy

I could go own but only one other religions claims a miracle started its religion and that is Islam. But let me ask this simple question, do you need a Miracle to explain the writing of a book? Explore that link above and ask yourself this, does the Koran seem like a Product of Divine Intelligence.

Only in Christianity does one find a religion that MUST have been founded upon a Miracle. A corpse, which had died on a cross and been speared was buried as dead. A corpse which had been dead for more then 40 hours came back to life. The greatest claim of Christianity the empty tomb has never been disproven and Christianity could not have succeded without it.

GrayPilgrim

February 2nd 2003, 02:33 AM

Amen!:yipee: :yipee: :thumb:

Robyn Banks

February 2nd 2003, 02:59 AM

Kris:
Only in Christianity does one find a religion that MUST have been founded upon a Miracle. A corpse, which had died on a cross and been speared was buried as dead. A corpse which had been dead for more then 40 hours came back to life. The greatest claim of Christianity the empty tomb has never been disproven and Christianity could not have succeded without it.
I can hear those Muslims saying that Islam must be true, because the Qur'an is so perfect that it can only have been written by a miracle. :rofl:

In any case:
1. The 'empty tomb' is a story from 50 years after Jesus' death. What 'proof' does such a story offer?

2. The world is full of religions that succeeded because of their followers' beliefs - even though those beliefs were wrong. Christianity didn't need an actual empty tomb to survive. All that it needed was believers who believed in an empty tomb.

Your line of apologetics is only persuasive to those who already believe.

Robyn

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 03:32 AM

Good Try again Robin but I am afraid once again your facts simply do not mesh to well with reality

the first mentioning of the empty tomb is from 35 AD 1st Cor 15

Thats 2 years after the event not 50

mark mentions the empty tomb-Mark AD55-60 thats thirty three years

Matthew-55-60 AD(the original Aramaic copy) again thirty years

John 65-85 ad- Well just possibly you might have one from 50 years(about bloody time)

Well I guess you choose not to read those links on Legends I posted. Ok I will restate some historicial facts. Historians accept as legimate records about the life of Alexander the Great even though they are ALL four hundred years post from the events of his life. Now tell me why you accept the life of Alex at face value but your not willing to accept other records which are far closer to the event in question

I can predict your answer legend.(urban myth)

ok if this is a legend then why does it record things that would be very honest from a legendary point of view.

a.) Jesus's hometown not believing in him
b.) records the lack of character(for lack of better words:) ) of the Apostles
c.) women as witnesses (this would be akin to using black witnesses in the south during the 1930s) Even the account in 1st Cor 15 mentions the women(wow look at this legend grow fastest bloody legend in history, just like Alexander :argh: )

So should I believe an Urban legend was made up? I would be a very poor historian if I threw out historicial methodology just because it shock my believes( I used to be an atheist) Should I believe that the Apostles made up a lie that got all but one of the brutally killed? Should I believe that Paul was flogged 39 times for 3 times for something that he knew that was not true. Should I believe that Paul died(knowlingly) for a lie

Robin I believe you are in the habit of not reading older post. A muslim and I are debating the Issue of the Koran now.

So in the end let me ask you simple question Why didnt the Jews produce the Corpse.

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 03:50 AM

cute article for you Robinhttp://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

:read:

Kris

February 2nd 2003, 04:11 AM

Another thought

You missed my point earlier in comparing Christianity to other religions

eastern religions-philosophical vaguery, it suceceds simply for that reason. Not testable

animism/Native American Beliefs- Again not testable

Islam- Very testable and it flunks. So how was it spread? Violence How is it maintained? Through Violence

Mormanism-testable and again it flunks. So why are their so many of them? thats assuming 10 million people out of 6 billion in the world is a lot. How does it maintain itself, Isolation(most Mormons are in Utah) and by hiding its past

Christianity-testable(all they had to do was produce the corpse) Surely if it was just a myth people in Judea would have found it odd people talking about this guy named Jesus(who do you think was the intended audience of the Book of Hebrews, Jewish Converts) that no one seemed to remember. All those in doubt of the Claims of the Apostles had to do was check the tomb. Come now tell me the Apostles stole the corpse (under the nose of the Guards) hid it then secretly choose to start a movement which they had to know would have gotten them persecuted. A for a leader that they would have known was false

charis humin

February 2nd 2003, 04:37 AM

Robyn:

In any case:
1. The 'empty tomb' is a story from 50 years after Jesus' death. What 'proof' does such a story offer?

woah...where did you get that figure from?

Christianity didn't need an actual empty tomb to survive. All that it needed was believers who believed in an empty tomb.

he he...that's what I call begging the question

:yipee: (sorry gotta love the banana)

jpholding

February 2nd 2003, 08:55 AM

Hugh Slaman:
JPH : your personal attacks on Till are becoming a little old. Caricaturing Till was only funny for a little while: we already know you don't like him, so there's no need to keep demonstrating it. Your latest comments above are just childish, and not especially amusing. I would appreciate your limiting your satire to Till's arguments, rather than silly personal attacks that degrade you just as much as they do Till.

Shrug. I'm done. It's obvious he won't own up to his reading error. As an aside I showed the paragraph in question to someone with an MA in English and two other degrees, and they said it was perfectly clear. Now tell me: Do YOU think he is being honest about his reading of that statement?

I won't argue otherwise. I think my latest comments are intended to show up defects in his base system of argumentation rather than being personal. But so be it.

jpholding

February 2nd 2003, 09:04 AM

Howdy,

The question of Geography in the book of Mark has been brought up before. I will let Mr Holding do the honors here if he would be so Kind as to link an article rebutting those claims :p

Thank you Kris. There are about 5 things I know of usually cited as such, and that being the case I'd just point for now to my page on Mark http://www.tektonics.org/TK-MK.html for reference. As an aside I read an item once in a book with a title like Acts in Its Social Setting about how even Strabo in his Geography made mistakes, but he sure isn't ashcanned. In practical terms BTW my method is actually more like yours. :)

ex-atheist.com is a good friend. :)

One last to Hugh -- with due respect, you are doing the same thing Till did tactically -- only with more courtesy. Which is appreciated. Thank you Jaltus and "Mad Man of Wittenburg" (hee hee) for your comments.

Robin Goodfellow

February 2nd 2003, 09:52 AM

Kris:
Kris supplied a link stating:

It is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and took shape merely in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to be framed in terms almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence.

This assumes that the story was a fabrication for apologetic purposes. I’m talking instead about the possibility that the tale simply grew up, perhaps among less sophisticated people, with no conscious intention of offering the women’s testimony for it’s evidentiary value. Peter Kirby has written that it may have made more sense for female disciples to witness the empty tomb if there was already a tradition that the male disciples came to believe in the Resurrection on the basis of the appearances.

See Kirby's article here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/rebuttal1.html

Kris supplied a link stating:

The historicity of the gospel writers is more reliable than Alexander the Great’s. Non-theistic scholars claim reports about the disciples arose after sufficient time elapsed to develop legends. In contrast, historical documentation for Alexander the Great’s existence appeared nearly 400 years after his death. Nevertheless, scholars agree he existed.

I don’t know whether this is true or not, but at this point all we have is an unsupported claim by someone named G. Zeinelde Jordan. Why should we necessarily believe him? I'm not sure his isolated statement is enough to give us confidence that this is the state of the documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander.

Let’s keep in mind, too, that we have coins minted by Alexander’s government, and a great city was named for him not long after his death. I don’t think that’s the case with Jesus. Alexander’s influence on others’ lives was also far greater during his lifetime than was Jesus’ during his, so it would be harder to extricate Alexander from the interconnected web of known events.

Kris later posted this in a reply to Robyn Banks:

Well I guess you choose not to read those links on Legends I posted. Ok I will restate some historicial facts. Historians accept as legimate records about the life of Alexander the Great even though they are ALL four hundred years post from the events of his life. Now tell me why you accept the life of Alex at face value but your not willing to accept other records which are far closer to the event in question.

Answered above.

I can predict your answer legend.(urban myth)

ok if this is a legend then why does it record things that would be very honest from a legendary point of view.

a.) Jesus's hometown not believing in him
b.) records the lack of character(for lack of better words ) of the Apostles
c.) women as witnesses (this would be akin to using black witnesses in the south during the 1930s) Even the account in 1st Cor 15 mentions the women(wow look at this legend grow fastest bloody legend in history, just like Alexander )

Answered by my point about the distinction between apologetic fabrications and legends.

So should I believe an Urban legend was made up? I would be a very poor historian if I threw out historicial methodology just because it shock my believes (I used to be an atheist)

Kris, historical methodology is exactly what *would* cause us to conclude it’s some sort of legend or fabrication. You may not be aware that many miraculous legends have grown up around historical figures such as Roman emperors and even Alexander the Great. Historians use common sense and critical thinking to discount these in the same way that most Christians discount Joseph Smith’s claim about the angel Moroni and his golden plates, and reports that mass numbers of Americans are being abducted and given anal probes by space aliens.

Any claim wildly inconsistent with what we’ve been able to verify about the world is inherently unlikely and would need extraordinarily strong evidence to warrant belief. Think how strong the evidence would need to be for you to believe that a twelve-year-old girl jumped up fifteen feet onto a rooftop. And yet the unlikelihood of that is nothing compared to the claim that a man arose after three days of absolute death because that particular man is actually the creator of the universe. You’d understand this principle instantly if the same absurdly unlikely claim were made of anyone but Jesus.

The fact that legends and fabrications do arise has been verified many times over, and so is a much more likely explanation for the existence of miraculous stories. That historians recognize this is the reason we aren’t taught in school that Zeus and Apollo exist and actually participated in ancient Greek wars.

This is explained much more comprehensively in Till’s article here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/2/2claim97.html

Should I believe that the Apostles made up a lie that got all but one of the brutally killed? Should I believe that Paul was flogged 39 times for 3 times for something that he knew that was not true. Should I believe that Paul died (knowlingly) for a lie

I’m sure Paul did believe it. But, again, common sense tells us it’s likely to have started out as a fabrication, legend, or mixture thereof.

So in the end let me ask you simple question Why didnt the Jews produce the Corpse.

Many possible explanations for this have been put forward. Here’s one of many links I could give you:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/roman.html

One of the simplest is that the body was hidden by Jesus’ disciples. Ironically, one of the premier fundamentalist apologists in America, William Lane Craig, has, according to Peter Kirby, “added his own speculation to the mix of legend concerning Joseph with his suggestion that Joseph was a delegate of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple who was commissioned to dispose of all three bodies in a criminal's grave yet who nevertheless tricked both Pilate and the Sanhedrin by giving a proper burial for the Lord in his own nearby tomb.”

Again, common sense and the principles of critical thinking tell us that some such prosaic explanation (even if we don’t know which one) is far more likely than, as I wrote above, “the claim that a man arose after three days of absolute death, because that particular man is actually the creator of the universe. You’d understand this principle instantly if the same absurdly unlikely claim were made of anyone but Jesus.”

Robin

Robin Goodfellow

February 2nd 2003, 10:02 AM

Kris:
My Problem with Mr Till, Robin is that he turns minor problems into grandeous conclusions. ( I will say some of his problems are really only problems in his mind though.)

Could you provide an example, Kris? I can’t help recalling that you’ve lodged similar charges against him in the past. For example, you accused him of complaining about minor details that Gospel writers, being fallible humans, could be expected make mistakes about. However, I pointed out that his only problem with these smaller errors is the refusal of inerrantists to admit their existence. I don’t recall you responding to this.

The question of Geography in the book of Mark has been brought up before. I will let Mr Holding do the honors here if he would be so Kind as to link an article rebutting those claims

Lets say the geography of Mark is a bit screwy. Remember church tradition teaches it was written in Rome. The person writing from his source and witness interviews(this case peter) not being a local made some mistakes? Does this disrupt the entire message?? Of course not

If Till were saying that we shouldn’t believe the Gospel message because there are a few minor discrepancies in the accounts, then I’d agree with your criticism. But I don’t see that he’s made that argument.

I can’t speak for him, but, from what I’ve seen, I think it’s more likely he’d argue that:

a) The existence of minor errors proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

b) The Gospel accounts have more than enough discordant and unlikely elements in them to warrant skepticism. This one forum thread is far too small in scope to accommodate them, but he’s written extensively about them elsewhere.

(Of course, when he comes back he may tell me I'm dead wrong. I'm not his spokesman.)

The question is did Mark have more then one source?? Of course it did!!! Mark 1:1 is a copy of an older source, another source is the writer itself and the person/people he interviewed which among them Church tradition from the earliest times indicates was Peter( at least three sources without losing any value to the witness nature of the account)

You will Notice I work a lot with Mr Holding. He is a biblicial inerrantist and a young earth creationist. I do not agree with biblicial inerrancy, I prefer a historical soundness/reliability, especially with the NT. I am also an evolutionist.
So then if I am not an inerrantist then why do I fight Mr Till. Because he wants to see all Christianity gone, not just inerrancy. He desires to destroy the good news and hopes of almost 2 billion people.

Robin you said most Christians are Inerrantist.

I doubt that I said that because I don’t know whether it’s true or not.

My dear

Incidentally, we both have gender-ambiguous names. I happen to be male. The fact that you have a “significant lady” suggests that you’re either male or Lesbian. I doubt that a Lesbian would have admitted to that status so casually in a Christian forum, so I suspect that you, too, are male. Based on the spelling of her name, I suspect Robyn Banks is female. But I see you calling her “Robin,” so I hope you’re staying clear on whom you’re replying to.

I live in the belt buckle of the bible belt (Georgia) and I can assure you I know many christians who are not inerrantist.

Well, that’s a relief. :-) (You can tell I’m old because I still use the old-fashioned emoticons of your grandparents’ day.)

However it is certainly a stance on the bible one is free to take.....provided they can defend it.

Agreed.