Daystar

[Daystar]

Google it or whatever it is you people do to sort of validate your ignorant atheist position.

Hey, the internet has evidence on it. Sources. The bible just claims to be self evident. How is it self-evident of its truth? Because it says so IN IT.
"The bible is true. How do we know this? Because the bible says so."
Circular reasoning. Its pathetic. There's no evidence.

Here is some more of Dan Barker's Easter Challenge - The author considers the following as discrepancies. Each of them will be addressed below. What time did the women visit the tomb?

They all convey the idea that it was dark and getting light. Dawn.

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the Women?

Some Bible writers mentioned the names of certain women, others do not. The various accounts do not indicate any of the women were not present, they only vary in which names are given.

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)

John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

Mark 15:47 and Luke 23:55-56 clearly state that the women were there the night before and rested for the Sabbath, then the following morning (the ancient Hebrew night was divided into "watches" each about 4 hours long. The third and final watch was from about 2:00 a.m. to sunrise. Called the morning watch. By Jesus' time they had adopted the Roman division of 4 watches, the final one being from about 3:00 a.m. to sunrise, though the Hebrew day began at sunset or evening and ended the following sunset or evening.) These verses, as well as John 19:39-40 took place before the morning of Jesus' rising from the dead. They are considered here, even though outside the conditions of the challenge, because the author has confused them for having taken place that morning. At John 19:39-40 upon Jesus' burial it is mentioned that the body had been spiced, but since it was a Sabbath, and the burial was done in haste, the women had returned to do a more thorough job.

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)

Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)

Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)

John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew gives the account of the stone being moved before the women arrived where the others do not. See 2. above.

Matthew: No (28:2)

Mark: Yes (16:4)

Luke: Yes (24:2)

John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Angels are spirit form and so in order for them to be seen by humans they have to assume physical form, so some see them as men and others know that they are actually angels. They are, in a sense, both angels and men.

(Genesis 29:1-5) Many of the details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time.

For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

See the point directly above. In seeing these small details that differ among various witnesses one could either come to the conclusion that these things didn't take place as the Bible says they did, or that there was an attempt to give accurate accounts from various perspectives in the stream of time which must have been a tremendously exciting and confusing period. And they differed slightly. It would have been easy enough for four Christians to come together and create one account that didn't differ in any way, but what would have been the point? The skeptic would have to take the position that they were so similar they must be fraudulent, and in thinking this they would be right.

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)

Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)

Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)

John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

Each of the accounts that are given convey the same message. If one tells another what yet another says the words may become ones own but the message is the same. These quotes themselves change over time and translation but the message is the same.

Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)

Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)

Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)

John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

There are two things to consider here. First of all, the possibility that since Mary had left to tell the apostles what she had seen, these other women are the ones that Mark is referring to. Mark's account of the events that took place are somewhat more limited than the others and he doesn't mention Mary having left, but the others do. That doesn't mean that he meant to imply that she hadn't, but only that he didn't mention it. Also note that the second half of verse 8 it seems to contradict itself saying that the women did tell Peter. This brings us to the second point of consideration. The second half of verse 8 of Mark chapter 16 to the conclusion of the book is spurious. It was added on later.

The Codex Regius of the eighth century includes both the short and the long ending adding that they are current in some quarters while not recognizing either as authoritative.

The Greek Codex Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi rescriptus from the fifth century C.E., as well as the Greek and Latin Bezae Codices from the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., Jerome's Latin Vulgate c. 400 C.E.,
Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac and Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aramaic both from the fifth century C.E. add the long conclusion, but the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican ms 1209, both from the fourth century C.E. as well as the Cinaitic Syriac codex from the fourth and fifth century C.E., and Armenian Version from the fourth to thirteenth century C.E. omits them. It would seem, especially when examining the context, that these verses were added sometime during this period.

Matthew: Yes (28:8)

Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)

Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)

John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

During the confusion of the events at the tomb Mary may have had, at any given point, some confusion about what was going on. That is completely understandable. Another point to consider is the body of Jesus itself. Jesus had one body which was sacrificed for all time. That body was now lifeless and taken away by angels, because, what is the point of sacrificing the body only to bring it back 3 days later? The man Jesus had died and was no more, but the spirit form that had existed before the man was alive again and had to take on another body in a similar way as all of the angels that were there at the tomb. This is why Mary and others didn't recognize him at first; she thought that he was the gardener.

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)

Mark: Yes (16:10,11)

Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)

John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

Notice that Mathew 28:9 doesn't mention Mary, only the women, and John mentions that Mary had left to tell Peter what had happened. Mark 16:9-10 are spurious. (See above "Did the women tell what happened?"

Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)

John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

In some older translations the Greek hapto which can mean "touch," but also "cling to, lay hold of" in English. Since Jesus allowed others to touch him it appears that in the case of Mary, she had been clinging to Jesus. She no doubt had been upset that he had died and didn't want to let him go, not understanding that he was going to go to Heaven with his Father to fulfill the purpose he had told them about, which is why he explained to her that that is what he needed to do. The German Elberfelder and Luther translations, the French Crampon and Liénar Bibles, Italian Riveduta and Diodati and Spanish Moderna, Valera and Nácar-Colunga translations all use the term "touching" as well. The New English Bible, Catholic La Bible de Jérusalem (The Jerusalem Bible) in French and English use the more contextually accurate "stop clinging" or "let go of" terminology which agrees with An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, Vol. IV, p. 145. The Spanish Ediciones Paulinas uses "Suéltame," meaning "Let go of me."

Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

[Edwardo Piet]

What I want to know is how this is evidence of the supernatural?
You say that the skeptic could say that these claims didn't happen that way or they could realize that they can be interpreted correctly they can just be misunderstood by some because of the different perspectives? Have I understood you correctly there?
The thing is though, the skeptic could also say the claims didn't happen at all. Or some of the claims at least.

[Daystar]

What I want to know is how this is evidence of the supernatural?

In order for there to be any evidence of the supernatural a counsil of scientists in Alexandria was convened and it was decided that only a very special breed of person was capable of handling the tremendous intellectual as well as spiritual requirements necessary to contemplate such intricate and important matters of science.

Unfortunately only a handful of these specialists survived the attack and subsequint burning of the library in Alexandria which was primarily devoted to this extremely important study.

Throughout the ages of darkness and light - every half century, in fact - a person of only the highest scientific quality is chosen to carry on the study of the supernatural and today, EVF ... that person is you!

You must now go forth and proove the supernatural! Let the evidence guide and protect you in your nearly infinate wisdom and attention span! Go forth, son of man!

You say that the skeptic could say that these claims didn't happen that way or they could realize that they can be interpreted correctly they can just be misunderstood by some because of the different perspectives? Have I understood you correctly there?

[sigh] What?

The thing is though, the skeptic could also say the claims didn't happen at all. Or some of the claims at least.

Well that would save a great deal of time, wouldn't it . . .

[Edwardo Piet]

Throughout the ages of darkness and light - every half century, in fact - a person of only the highest scientific quality is chosen to carry on the study of the supernatural and today, EVF ... that person is you!

You must now go forth and proove the supernatural! Let the evidence guide and protect you in your nearly infinate wisdom and attention span! Go forth, son of man!

I'm not the one claiming the supernatural.

[sigh] What?

What? What I said.

The thing is though, the skeptic could also say the claims didn't happen at all. Or some of the claims at least.

Well that would save a great deal of time, wouldn't it . . .

But it would be correct if its due to the lack of evidence. Its correct to dismiss claims that lack evidence.

[Daystar]

Daystar - Throughout the ages of darkness and light - every half century, in fact - a person of only the highest scientific quality is chosen to carry on the study of the supernatural and today, EVF ... that person is you!

You must now go forth and proove the supernatural! Let the evidence guide and protect you in your nearly infinate wisdom and attention span! Go forth, son of man!

EvidenceVsFaith - I'm not the one claiming the supernatural.

Daystar - I didn't say that you were.

Daystar - [sigh] What?

EvidenceVsFaith - What? What I said.

Daystar - I didn't bother to read it.

EvidenceVsFaith - The thing is though, the skeptic could also say the claims didn't happen at all. Or some of the claims at least.

Daystar - Well that would save a great deal of time, wouldn't it . . .

EvidenceVsFaith - But it would be correct if its due to the lack of evidence. Its correct to dismiss claims that lack evidence.

Daystar - It may be correct to dismiss some claims that lack evidence if it has been thoroughly established that that is in fact the case, however there is always the possibility that the evidence just hasn't 'presented itself' to the casual observer or they hadn't bothered to look at it because they were already of the opinion that it was for shit. This is based upon the possibility that there is nothing further that can be done with a lack of evidence. Especially actually look for evidence, right? Right.

By the way, Mr. Evidence ... I have noticed that your own evidence regarding the mutation of the Pepper Moth is obstanately persisting in its abscence!

I see no evidence there at all!

[looks under the bed] No evidence here!

[asks the cat] No. Hasn't seen any ...

Hmmmm .... Should I just dismiss it because there is no evidence or is the [] evolution shit?

[Edwardo Piet]

EvidenceVsFaith - I'm not the one claiming the supernatural.

Daystar - I didn't say that you were.

So I don't have to prove it then. You are claiming it. So you have to prove it or ignore me. And whenever you claim it I can ask for proof. I'm curious why you claim God exactly if you can't give evidence of him?

Daystar - It may be correct to dismiss some claims that lack evidence if it has been thoroughly established that that is in fact the case, however there is always the possibility that the evidence just hasn't 'presented itself' to the casual observer or they hadn't bothered to look at it because they were already of the opinion that it was for shit. This is based upon the possibility that there is nothing further that can be done with a lack of evidence. Especially actually look for evidence, right? Right.

Looking for evidence is different to claiming the supernatural and not explaining how it exists. Looking for evidence is fine. But why would I want to look for evidence in a 2000+ year old book? I'd rather stick with where evidence is actually seen than going off into nowhere hoping to find evidence. Why would their be evidence of the outside world inside a book unless there's a mathematical equation in there or something? Explain please. I have read parts of the bible. And it gives no more proof of 'the supernatural' than a Doctor Seuss book has. Its not like if I read the whole thing I'd suddenly think "OH. So it says God exists and miracles happen so it must be true!"

By the way, Mr. Evidence ... I have noticed that your own evidence regarding the mutation of the Pepper Moth is obstanately persisting in its abscence!

I see no evidence there at all!

[looks under the bed] No evidence here!

[asks the cat] No. Hasn't seen any ...

Hmmmm .... Should I just dismiss it because there is no evidence or is the [] evolution shit?

I haven't heard of the pepper moth. Is that those moths that evolve to be smoke coloured because of pollution? That I've heard about (not even sure if they exist I have only heard tbh, my Dad told me years back) If you're expecting me to give evidence for its evolution then you're playing pure "God of the gaps". Expecting me to prove every single individual species' evolution. When would it be enough? When will you see? What evidence would it take to change your mind?.
If you understand evolution you will understand that it applies to all living things. Its stupid to just pick out individual species and say "prove that", "prove that!", "Prove that".
Thats 'God of the gaps'. You spot a gap and expect proof or the whole thing is flawed. Although you do so far tend to think the whole thing is a big hole and thats of course the problem! I'm not saying for sure that science has the evidence (because I don't really have any idea what this moth is for a start) but its stupid to expect me to prove every species you say.
There's no point in that. That's silly. Understand evolution and you'll understand how creatures evolve.
How can you understand how the "Pepper Moth" evolved if you don't understand evolution itself at least at a fundamental level?

[Darwinian]

Put simply, the pepper moth was a lightish brown and used to live on the bark of trees. As the industrial revolution took place and pollution became a real problem most of the natural habitats of the moth became darkened with soot and so many of the species lost their ability to camouflage and were eaten by birds.



Mutation means that not every moth was born with this light colour. Some months that were born with darker colour avoided this fate and subsequently went on to produce the next generation, and so on.



For some time then, most pepper moths became very dark until we started to clean up our act and reduced the amount of pollution and therefore the darkening of trees etc.

Now the pepper moth has started to regain it lighter colour as the darker moths are now no longer properly camouflaged.

Scientists like to use the pepper moth as a good example of evolution, which of course it is, but creationists point out that this is only evidence of micro-evolution i.e. changes within a species and not macro evolution i.e. one species turning into another.

However, which ever way you look at it, it's proof of evolution. unless of course, God deliberately intervened and helped the poor old pepper moth out in it's time of trouble.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Though I hold out no hope of a rational answer, one that is relevant or even an answer at all I remind you Daystar that have yet to answer my question properly.

I've also come to another conclusion about you (in addition to your being a Fundy Creationist who is boxing a bit clever) ... you've become a berserker! I don't use that in the classic sense of Norse warriors but in the sense of a science fiction book I once read where the human race, well advanced into space, had come across these planetoid sized ships whose purpose was purely and simply to cause chaos and destruction ... I think that is now your aim here and it's unfortunate (for me) that I do react badly to people like you.

Mods: I think you need to seriously consider banning Daystar (me too probably) because I don't think he is here to debate at all, at least not any more, I think his one and only purpose is to "fuck us up" in some way. He's not a troll in the classic sense but his behaviour does mimic some aspects of the troll.

Kyu

[lukec]

I respectfully disagree, Kyu, although I understand where you're coming from. Daystar and I very rarely see eye to eye, and are often butting heads, but frankly I wouldn't post nearly as much as I do if he wasn't here, for two reasons. First, when he posts something, it often spurs me to start doing some research, and I've had reason to use my school's resource of peer-reviewed and am learning as I go, which I really like. Second, there is no point in preaching to the choir, and I'd rather flat out argue with Daystar, who brings up many creationist points and lets me look into them for myself and look at why exactly they are wrong, or misleading.

[leo-rcc]

Hi Lukec,

First, when he posts something, it often spurs me to start doing some research, and I've had reason to use my school's resource of peer-reviewed and am learning as I go, which I really like.

With his postings from a month ago, I would have agreed, but lately, nothing even vaguely original or thought-provoking came out of Daystar's keyboard. Lately it seems he is not able to directly counter the argument so he reverts to the usual apologetic mental masturbation, sarcasm, and sometimes flatout trolling.

Second, there is no point in preaching to the choir, and I'd rather flat out argue with Daystar, who brings up many creationist points and lets me look into them for myself and look at why exactly they are wrong, or misleading.

Well if you argue long enough with various creationists, you will note that there is hardly anything original in their postings, and countering their canards becomes just laborious, not stimulating.