Continued Discussion With Lnc

[NotBlinded]

 

Nailed it on the first try.

 

OMG, my ego loved that. Wait, that's a bad thing, but I can't help it, no wait...I can't even not not help it.

[LNC]

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

Your argument is obviously ineffective because people keep telling you : it doesn't add up. The line of argument alone is insufficient. But persist , if you must.

 

Just go back and read your own posts. If you don't see it, then I suppose you'll have to wait a few years until the damage is done.

 

I don't intend to insult here, even when insulted. If you have actual examples of where you think I have done this, could you post them. You are obviously interpreting some of my posts as being insulting, so maybe you could let me know which those were.

 

I have never called anyone names, ignorant or otherwise, on this site, so again, that may be your interpretation, but it is not necessarily my intent. Now, some people make what I consider uninformed statements, which is a different issue, but I try to point out why I consider them so.

 

You also assume that I am wrong without making that case. You insinuate that I am "building a teflon defense mechanism" which is question-begging on your part. You assume that I am wrong and then say that my defense is some sort of "teflon defense." What you need to do is to show me where I am wrong before making these fallacious arguments and statements.

 

If you think that my arguments are ineffective and don't add up as you believe that people have told me, then maybe you can show me how rather than making statements that don't match reality. If I am wrong as you claim, then surely that won't be a difficult task for you.

[Mriana]

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

Your argument is obviously ineffective because people keep telling you : it doesn't add up. The line of argument alone is insufficient. But persist , if you must.

 

Just go back and read your own posts. If you don't see it, then I suppose you'll have to wait a few years until the damage is done.

 

I don't intend to insult here, even when insulted. If you have actual examples of where you think I have done this, could you post them. You are obviously interpreting some of my posts as being insulting, so maybe you could let me know which those were.

 

I have never called anyone names, ignorant or otherwise, on this site, so again, that may be your interpretation, but it is not necessarily my intent. Now, some people make what I consider uninformed statements, which is a different issue, but I try to point out why I consider them so.

 

I pointed out at least one place where you were insulting to others. Not sure if you are there yet or if you missed it.

[oddbird1963]

Really, LNC, you need to go back and read the tone of your previous posts. You are rather insulting in the way you dismiss people and call them ignorant. I know building a teflon coating is part of the christian defense mechanism, but if ministry is anywhere in your future, you need to lose the condescending tone or you're going to do more harm than good.

 

Your argument is obviously ineffective because people keep telling you : it doesn't add up. The line of argument alone is insufficient. But persist , if you must.

 

Just go back and read your own posts. If you don't see it, then I suppose you'll have to wait a few years until the damage is done.

 

I don't intend to insult here, even when insulted. If you have actual examples of where you think I have done this, could you post them. You are obviously interpreting some of my posts as being insulting, so maybe you could let me know which those were.

 

I have never called anyone names, ignorant or otherwise, on this site, so again, that may be your interpretation, but it is not necessarily my intent. Now, some people make what I consider uninformed statements, which is a different issue, but I try to point out why I consider them so.

 

You also assume that I am wrong without making that case. You insinuate that I am "building a teflon defense mechanism" which is question-begging on your part. You assume that I am wrong and then say that my defense is some sort of "teflon defense." What you need to do is to show me where I am wrong before making these fallacious arguments and statements.

 

If you think that my arguments are ineffective and don't add up as you believe that people have told me, then maybe you can show me how rather than making statements that don't match reality. If I am wrong as you claim, then surely that won't be a difficult task for you.

 

"Ting . . . Ting . . . Ting . . ." - The sound of words bouncing off a teflon coating. Wasn't it Jonathan Swift who said, "There’s none so blind as they that won’t see."

[Neon Genesis]

I love that LNC does that thing Notblinded had a word for earlier where in one post he denies he's insulting anyone but then turns around and says Oddbird is out of touch with reality.

[Saviourmachine]

To be a respectable debater pick on your opponent's weakest argument. To be a wise debater respond to your opponent's strongest argument.

 

This became a discussion about the nature of insults.

[Saviourmachine]

I don't know if LNC is still around, but if we go back to Ehrman, it is indeed interesting to know where he comes from. I hope I am allowed to quote him that fully. This text has been quoted already several times over here (Misquoting Jesus):

 

A turning point came in my second semester, in a course I was tak­ing with a much revered and pious professor named Cullen Story. The course was on the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark, at the time (and still) my favorite Gospel. For this course we needed to be able to read the Gospel of Mark completely in Greek (I memorized the entire Greek vocabulary of the Gospel the week before the semester began); we were to keep an exegetical notebook on our reflections on the in­terpretation of key passages; we discussed problems in the interpreta­tion of the text; and we had to write a final term paper on an interpretive crux of our own choosing. I chose a passage in Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that "Sabbath was made for hu­mans, not humans for the Sabbath" and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple "when Abiathar was the high priest" and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat. One of the well­known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1­6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar's father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes.

In my paper for Professor Story, I developed a long and compli­cated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened "when Abiathar was the high priest," it doesn't really mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main charac­ters. My argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words in­volved and was a bit convoluted. I was pretty sure Professor Story would appreciate the argument, since I knew him as a good Christian scholar who obviously (like me) would never think there could be anything like a genuine error in the Bible. But at the end of my paper he made a simple one­line comment that for some reason went straight through me. He wrote: "Maybe Mark just made a mistake."

 

Subsequently Ehrman describes how he discovers the methodology of "textual criticism". If the translators were perfectly guided in their translations, the entire methodology of "textual criticism" would not make sense. Textual criticism makes only sense after acknowledgement of later alterations in the text that were not divinely inspired... Now LNC remarks that it includes another assumption. Namely, that there should be some original text to begin with to do "textual criticism". So, let us define "textual criticism", say it's the scientific field that studies how scribes were changing scripture and the corresponding methodology of how such changes can be recognized. That there is an original scripture seems to be indeed an assumption in this field. It's not a hypothesis that is under scrutiny within "textual criticism". Does that mean that someone who doesn't think that there was no original text to begin with cannot follow the methodologies of "textual criticism"? In contrary! If there is no such a master text, "textual criticism" might likely end up with finding a smaller and smaller text that can be seen as original. Hence, it might very well give some clues about the probability that there exist a shared origin.

 

I never said that of Ehrman, I put in a direct quote from the book where he says that scholars believe that we can get back with a high degree of accuracy to what was in the oldest manuscripts. If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original. Do you want to tell him that? Ehrman throws out a red herring argument by saying that because we don't have the originals we can't know what is in them.

 

Regarding Ehrman I think he wants people to know that there is such a thing as "textual criticism". And that we don't need to take the current texts at face value. Ehrman thinks that he can tell the original message of certain texts. He won't claim that he can tell the original message of all texts. The method of "textual criticism" takes him just so far. This concerns the scope of the methodology.

 

I just realize that you're wrong about Ehrman. NG pointed me in the direction and I saw that you are misconstruing Ehrman's argument. He says: "In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy." Let me rephrase that: even though there are so many differences in the manuscripts, scholars [in general, not necessarily including Ehrman, and not necessarily a uniform belief or opinion, but as a general statements that there are some or many who are included in this group] are convince ... In other words, he doesn't say he agrees with the scholars (in general), but rather that it's a common opinion. So how can you conclude from that quote that he believes that too? It doesn't necessarily follow that he includes himself in "scholars", does it?

 

So, as stated above, it is possible to disbelief in even the existence of such a thing as an original text, and still perform "textual criticism" to try to reconcile the current texts to a hypothetical original version. However, in this case it's about the success of the "textual criticism" methodology. I think it's perfectly valid for a scientist to pursue a methodology although it doesn't guarantee success.

 

LNC probably would like to have Ehrman explain the success rate and the scope of the "textual criticism" methodology. If the methodology has limited validity, when does it apply and when not?

[Mriana]

To be a respectable debater pick on your opponent's weakest argument. To be a wise debater respond to your opponent's strongest argument.

 

This became a discussion about the nature of insults.

 

Well, LNC asked where he was insulting. He asked, some of us answered.

[Ouroboros]

Well put. Perhaps he will understand when it comes from you instead.

[LNC]

I do regret having taken that tone here and elsewhere with you, and I apologize for my vulgarity. I confess to sometimes taking out aggression here for personal matters - I have done so to non-Christian members as well, if I'm in a mood anything that gets in the way gets a taste of it and I'm sorry for that.

 

I appreciate your saying that.

 

'NT scholars' means nothing to me - I have a mind of my own, I don't need anyone to tell me what to think or believe. I don't ignore, I dismiss, and with just cause.

 

I can't believe the resurrection is the best explanation because I can't believe it ever happened. I dismiss those accounts of it in the gospels because they don't agree in any way, and because there IS no account of a resurrection in them, just of an empty tomb, and I consider all of it to be fiction.

 

Don't feel bad about not being able to do much for me, I'm not asking you to. I know what I do and don't believe and why. However you do come off as condescending - I don't take personal offense but I don't like to see other members here talked down to. I don't honestly have any personal quarrel with you and my tendency to lash out is something I don't like about myself. Again I apologize - peace.

 

The question that I have for you is why do you reject the possibility that the resurrection could have happened. I think that is the crux of the issue. I apologize if I come off as being condescending, it is not my intention to do so; however, it is often difficult to read a person's intentions through his/her words. Thanks again, I wish you peace as well.

[LNC]

Greetings, Oddbird and LNC!

 

I agree with Oddbird that communication style is contributing to the difficulty in this exchange. It occurred to me this a.m. that LNC is communicating using conventions of academic discourse. Though I often cringe as he posts to others because I know the delivery is not going to go over, his tone doesn't effect me personally much. It feels natural; comfortable, familiar. I think my long, happy training in academic discourse is a big part of why I tend to be drawn to LNC's tone.

 

That said, since I've left academia (finally!) in recent years, my old ways of speaking and presenting have not been received well outside of that setting, so I've endeavored to change my approach. (After all, being effective is at least as important as being right! )

 

The longer I am out of academia, the more I question if academic discourse is really the most effective way to exchange ideas even within the confines of academia. If I ever decide to teach, I suppose I will find out. In the meantime, I've been challenged by new ideas about exchange, largely born from pychologist Carl Roger's Communication: It's Blocking and Its Facilitation and "Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood: Principles of Empathic Listening" from Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

 

I like the empathic listening model because it hits on 3 major areas of human communication: interpersonal connection (including respect and goodwill), emotion (minimizes emotional polarization; maximizes mutual openness to new ideas), and intellectual (correct facts, reasoning, clear presentation, etc.). I assess that academic discourse depends far too heavily on the last of these, and thus has to constantly work despite the other two, rather than alongside them.

 

My thoughts, ironically not presented using empathic communication.

 

Cheers to you both!

 

Phanta

 

Phanta,

 

Thanks for your thoughts and ideas. I will try to be more conscious of my tone. I know that we all consider these ideas to be very important and there are strong feelings about these issues as well. I am not here to insult anyone and try not to consciously do so; however, I am human and I'm sure that when my buttons get pushed, I may slip from time to time in my tone. I will try to pay closer attention to that.

[Guest Davka]

From my PM to LNC (the one that caused him to put me on his ignore list)

 

If you honestly want to engage in constructive conversation with me on the subject of Christianity, you're going to have to admit when you are wrong, and actually demonstrate some willingness to engage in the give-and-take of honest communication. You have failed miserably to do so up until this point, evading subjects which demonstrate your mistakes and refusing to admit for even one second that your opinion might not be the correct one. These are the actions of a misanthropic sociopath.

 

Perhaps it is merely that you are incapable of communicating effectively in a print-based medium. Perhaps you are using this board as a for-credit project at <University Name--Removed for privacy reasons>. Perhaps (and I sincerely hope this is not the case) you really are a misanthropic sociopath. Whatever the cause, your posts do not evince trust of any kind. Frankly, I suspect your motives are less than honest.

 

I since thought of another possible explanation: Asperger's Syndrome.

[LNC]

She right about the figuring of the days, EXCEPT it still does not equate a full 36 hours. Secondly, depending on which gospel you read, there is anywhere from one woman to three women, except in Mark the last was tacked on later (Mark16: 9-20), much later and not by the same author and it's not original (see footnotes of one's Bible for evidence, if you like. "They are lacking in the Codes Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus"), so it is hard to say how many he appeared to, but apparently just one Mary. So there is still a problem with the story. That and since Jesus rose around sunrise, we have evidence of astro-theology, which explains the sunrise services on Easter Sunday. The whole story is astro-theology and has nothing to do with a real man.

 

You are right, it doesn't add up to 36 hours, but I don't know that we are ever that precise when we use language either, so I don't see the problem here. In fact, there seem to be only a few times where I find people to be that precise and that is when I am renting a car or parking at the airport, then they count down to the minutes. Otherwise, we tend to generalize more. On your second point, I was listening to NT Scholar, Richard Bauckham speak about that issue. He said that in his research on this issue he had found that biographers and historians in that era didn't just tell history in cold, stark facts, they also wanted to tell an interesting story. In the case of John, he was very close to Mary and emphasized here story over the others; however, after finding the tomb empty she reported to Peter, who arrived after her, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” So, apparently she was not alone when she discovered the tomb to be empty. It is not unusual for eyewitnesses to emphasize different aspects of the story when they retell it. You are right that the ending of Mark is not original to the Gospel.

 

How do you come up with this connection to astro-theology? Do you have any documentation to indicate that this belief was present in 1st century Israel and that it would have influenced the followers of Jesus? I would be interested in seeing any documentation that you have on this.

 

Matt: 2 women (2 Marys to be exact), Mark 3 women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (I believe AKA Mother Mary), and Salome). OK here is where it is confusing. In verses 1-8 he appeared to 3 women, but in 9 to just Mary Magdalene. Luke 3 named women (Mary Magdelene, Joanna, and Mother Mary) plus "other women". 24:1 says, "They and certain other women with them, came to the tomb". John it is just Mary Magdalene who goes to the tomb. So the stories have issues with accountability and that is just for starters. Since it is another katabasis story, it is difficult to say how this happened, BUT since the other 3 wrote off what Mark wrote, it is a crap shoot as to why the number of women vary and why the number varies between the original 8 verses in Mark and the tact on verses 9-20. The other three writers did not refer to each other as to how the story should go, obviously and none of them were eyewitnesses because they were just writing a story, embellishing off Mark before any copyrights and pulling from various other mythologies at the same time.

 

Again, we know that he appeared to three women; however, in certain parts of the accounts his appearance to Mary is emphasized. Also, Mary was one of the most common names for girls and women during that time and in that region. I forget what percentage of girls and woman were named Miriam (Mary); however, it is a high percentage, so it can get confusing. I don't find this troubling at all as it is not unusual in the recounting of stories for one person to emphasize certain aspects over others, while another person may emphasize other aspects. I would find it more troubling is each of the accounts was too similar to the others as it might indicate collusion of the retelling. That is something that historians (and police detectives) look for to determine whether the account is independent or not.

 

Another aspect that Bauckham points out is that in the earlier days, when Matt., Mark, and Luke were written, there was still a threat to many of the subjects in the stories and that persecution had somewhat subsided when John wrote, allowing him to name more names. Those are just some thoughts to consider regarding these issues.

[LNC]

And don't forget arrogant. It's as though he thinks we haven't done our homework. I have studied this for more years than I care to count along with other texts outside the Bible and Xianity.

 

I don't think that you haven't studied this stuff, it is just that I may bring a different perspective and exposure to some scholarship that some of you have not taken into consideration.

[LNC]

It makes me wonder if LNC has ever repented for any sins in his life as he constantly denies any wrong doing on his part but will gladly point out when other people are being mean bullies and whine about how he's been treated. But then when you point out he has a martyr complex, he turns around and denies it and says he enjoys posting here after he just got done whining about the people here. What was that Proverbs said about the fool who ignores instructions?

 

Yes, I have repented of sin and continue to do so. I don't remember denying wrong doing on this post, especially moral wrong doing. If you have something specific that I have done for which I need to repent, please let me know and I will be glad to do so.

[Guest Davka]

The trouble with the Three Days prophecy being "close enough" is that it does not simply say 3 days. It says three days and three nights.

 

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40

 

Good Friday - day one

Friday Night - night one

Saturday - day two

Saturday night - night two

Sunday morning - day three

 

Where is the third night?

 

BTW - if you want LNC to see this, you'll have to repost it. He's afraid of me.

[Mriana]

How do you come up with this connection to astro-theology? Do you have any documentation to indicate that this belief was present in 1st century Israel and that it would have influenced the followers of Jesus? I would be interested in seeing any documentation that you have on this.

 

It is esoteric knowledge. You have the exoteric and if I were to try to explain it to you in more detail, you would either blow a gasket, because it would start blowing memes, and refuse to listen very far, as well as be in complete denial, maybe even respond with anger or, which is highly unlikely since you cling to what you have been spoon-fed, accept it and start doing your own research on the matter. The truth is, like Samson, Jesus is symbolism for the sun. If there ever was a said Jesus, and there were many of them, he is too buried in myth to find. Humans went from animism to anthropomorphism and that is exactly what you are seeing with the Jesus story- anthropomorphism.

 

Again, we know that he appeared to three women; however, in certain parts of the accounts his appearance to Mary is emphasized. Also, Mary was one of the most common names for girls and women during that time and in that region. I forget what percentage of girls and woman were named Miriam (Mary); however, it is a high percentage, so it can get confusing. I don't find this troubling at all as it is not unusual in the recounting of stories for one person to emphasize certain aspects over others, while another person may emphasize other aspects. I would find it more troubling is each of the accounts was too similar to the others as it might indicate collusion of the retelling. That is something that historians (and police detectives) look for to determine whether the account is independent or not.

 

No we don't know, because the stories are different and none of them are eyewitness accounts.

 

Another aspect that Bauckham points out is that in the earlier days, when Matt., Mark, and Luke were written, there was still a threat to many of the subjects in the stories and that persecution had somewhat subsided when John wrote, allowing him to name more names. Those are just some thoughts to consider regarding these issues.

 

Why would I want to consider an apologist's thoughts? The only truth he gave, apparently, is that they are stories no more real than John Jakes' North and South books.

 

 

And don't forget arrogant. It's as though he thinks we haven't done our homework. I have studied this for more years than I care to count along with other texts outside the Bible and Xianity.

 

I don't think that you haven't studied this stuff, it is just that I may bring a different perspective and exposure to some scholarship that some of you have not taken into consideration.

 

And why would we want to take into consideration any apologists, who really aren't scholars and not actually writing anything scholarly?

[mwc]

I since thought of another possible explanation: Asperger's Syndrome.

Trust me (I speak from experience) when I tell you that you are walking into a potential minefield with this. You may wish to turn around and walk back out the way you came to avoid any live mines.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

I since thought of another possible explanation: Asperger's Syndrome.

Trust me (I speak from experience) when I tell you that you are walking into a potential minefield with this. You may wish to turn around and walk back out the way you came to avoid any live mines.

 

mwc

 

Hey, when I come in contact with religious dogma, I feel like I have Asperger's Disorder or another form of PDD, because it makes no sense. Keep in mind, I have a son who was Dx with PDD-NOS when he was 2 1/2 almost 3.

[mwc]

Hey, when I come in contact with religious dogma, I feel like I have Asperger's Disorder or another form of PDD, because it makes no sense. Keep in mind, I have a son who was Dx with PDD-NOS when he was 2 1/2 almost 3.

You're a lot nicer than the thread I landed myself in (or should I say the wrong side of) about AS I don't how long ago (and thus the warning).

 

mwc

[Mriana]

Hey, when I come in contact with religious dogma, I feel like I have Asperger's Disorder or another form of PDD, because it makes no sense. Keep in mind, I have a son who was Dx with PDD-NOS when he was 2 1/2 almost 3.

You're a lot nicer than the thread I landed myself in (or should I say the wrong side of) about AS I don't how long ago (and thus the warning).

 

mwc

 

I have found that getting angry in the face of ignorance is not alway the best approach. However, sometimes it does get frustrating when one tries to educate others about Pervasive Developmental Disorders and those same people repeat the same errors about it. Overwhelming confusion might not be the best example of those with a Dx on the Autism spectrum, but such confusion and/or frustration sometimes is exhibited in the same manner with those who don't have an Autism Spectrum disorder, only without the flapping hands, spinning, and/or screaming, because it is successfully ingrained in us that it is socially inappropriate. Tantrums and/or outburst of anger and/or visible frustration and/or confusion often happen though even with us who don't have an Autism Spectrum disorder.

 

My mother said one thing when I was a child that I have found most accurate in my studies of psychology- mental illness is the extreme of the norm. Depending on the Dx, you can take any person who is not mentally ill and find mild to moderate symptoms of any mental illness. The problem is most likely the neuro-chemistry in the brain- either too much or too little. For example: Depression is an extreme and long lasting case of the Blues, which most often involves a neuro-chemical imbalance. Like those with an autism spectrum disorder, appropriate therapy, behaviour modification, and medication, in combination, is often helpful. Of course, the person has to put the tools they acquire in therapy and behaviour mod. to good use or such treatments are not very affective and therein lies the problem- not all people with Autism Spectrum Disorder have a normal to high IQ in which to put those tools to good use and not all people with normal to high IQs have the desire (sometimes not the ability depending on the Dx) to put the tools to good use. Someone with Schizophrenia that is off their meds, don't have the ability to put what they have learned to good use, but while on their meds, many with that Dx can do very well. That doesn't mean the desire isn't somewhere within them to use those tools though.

 

Once people, or at least for me, realize that mental illness/disorders are an extreme of the norm such illnesses and disorders are less threatening. That is all Autism Spectrum Disorders are- an extreme of behaviour and what one feels normally in social situations, as well as other areas of development. Imagine, if you were 3 years old and could not communicate to your mother that you are hungry and you want a banana because you, for whatever reason, can't speak or gesture to communicate. The would be overwhelmingly frustrating esp when you see other kids saying things and getting what they want. You hear, "Don't climb the fence" yet you climb it anyway and go into the neighbour's yard because the words somehow didn't make sense to you as they were meant to communicate to you and you have no comprehension as to why the adults are upset with you for doing so, but once the adult in charge says, "Keep both feet on the ground" you get it. As bizarre as it may seem, it is an extreme.

 

Fundamentalism is, IMO, an extreme of the norm also, although I would not categorize it under ASD or any other DSM category. Seems to me, it would need it's own category, such as Religious/Spiritual disorders or something like that. Such a category exists now, but Fundamentalism is not within that scope currently. It is "other conditions that maybe a focus of clinical attention" called "Religious or Spiritual problem" and placed on Axis II- at least according to the text book I had for Abnormal Psychology back in the mid-90s. At that time the DSM-IV was being used. The DSM has been, to my knowledge at least, updated since then. I highly expect, maybe in the near future, I don't know, that religious extremism will eventually be categorized as a mental disorder. That is my opinion at least, so take it for what it is worth- it maybe worth as much as my BullSh** degree in psychology is worth- almost nothing.

 

I think I should add, though I may get some folks here angry with me, atheism that involves extreme vehement anger (what some might call militant atheism) in the face of religious ideology or a person who gets physically ill in the face of dogmatic religious ideology (I'll raise my hand on this one and admit I have this issue) are also examples of extremes of the norm.

[NotBlinded]

...or a person who gets physically ill in the face of dogmatic religious ideology (I'll raise my hand on this one and admit I have this issue) are also examples of extremes of the norm.

Damn, I resemble that remark too.

[LNC]

She right about the figuring of the days, EXCEPT it still does not equate a full 36 hours.

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

Jesus was only in the grave for 3 days and 2 nights according to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, and 2 days and 2 nights according to John. Although Jesus didn't have to be in the grave for 72 hours, he did have to be there on portions of 6 separate 12 hour time periods.

That would total a minimum of 50 hours.

Jesus was only in the grave approximately 38 hours.

Even accommodating Jesus by counting a portion of a 12 hour period as a full period doesn't help Jesus.

 

First, you have to realize that in that culture they didn't have the precise timekeeping standards that we do. They didn't have clocks and wristwatches, or as we do now, cell phones to keep time. With that said, it still appears that Jesus said three days and three nights, which seems to be an apparent contradiction. I believe that the answer to this was that Jesus was making more of a rhetorical comparison than a specific time comparison. As Jonah was in the fish, which he considered to be a means of judgment, God used it as a means of his deliverance; so, the Son of Man was in the heart of the earth which his enemies considered his place of judgment, but which God used as a means of salvation, however, in this case for us, not him.

 

I don't see the main point of his comparison to be the time factor as we aren't even told in the book of Jonah how long he was in the fish, so somehow Jesus had special insight into the length of time that Jonah was in the fish. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the subject.

[LNC]

Fortunately it wasn't meant to be a commentary on the whole of Galatians. Just the idea that Paul was losing out to another group. The other group, essentially unknown to us, probably was upset they were losing out to Paul. Both were likely mud slinging the others and accusing them of corrupting the gospel.

 

mwc

 

I guess that Paul would not consider that he was losing out, but instead, the gospel was being abandoned. The other group was made up of the Judaizers who are spoken about often in the book of Acts. They weren't so much upset that they were losing out to Paul, but that the gospel was succeeding. I don't think the Judaizers were interested in the gospel, but in bringing the people back under the auspices of the Law.

[LNC]

In those days anonymous people who wrote under the name Matthew weren't so literal in their usage of "days" and "nights" when used in allegorical terms when trying to relate to non-prophecies about people who lived inside fish.

 

Why don't you ignorant skeptics try reading a book on these things some time? These were very common practices.

 

mwc

 

I am curious as to how you know that anonymous people were writing this Gospel under the name of Matthew? How do you know that this passage was meant to be allegorical?