Conquer Club

JJM wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:The gospels were written at that time. A person an forget the details but a person walking on water is something that you are not going to forget.

Oh really?

Well then remind me, who was it who went to the tomb to witness Jesus' resurrection? How many people attended the empty tomb?

Was it:

A: Mary alone (John 20:1)? A total of 1.
B: Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? A total of 2.
C: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? A total of 3.
D: The women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem––possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1, see 23:55)? More than 4.

After all, remembering who was present at the scene of Christ's apparent resurrection is something that you are not going to forget, right?

Later the Apostles also went to the tomb and seen him.

FAIL.

The timing of the apostle's visit to the tomb has zero relevance to the question asked.

Now go back and answer the actual question I asked you. Who first went to Jesus' tomb and discovered it empty, which one of the 100% accurate apostle accounts is accurate, and which three of the 100% accurate apostle accounts are inaccurate?

Simple question, the answer should be right there in your completely infallible and consistent Bible, why the difficulty?

JJM wrote:Maybe not 100% but there is no way you can mistake someone rising from the dead or someone walking on water.

Then why have I just been able to find two sets of fourfold contradictions surrounding the appearance of angels (no way you can mistake that, right?) and the manner in which Jesus rose from the dead?

Dancing Mustard wrote:Look, save me some time here, go read this: http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

God told the patriarch to coat the ark, both inside and out, all 229,500 square feet of it, with pitch, and, in fact, this was a common practice in ancient times. But when Noah hurried to the corner hardware store, the shelf was bare, for pitch is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon similar to petroleum (Rosenfeld, p. 126), and we know that oil, tar, and coal deposits were formed when organic matter was buried and subjected to extreme pressure during the flood (Whitcomb and Morris, pp. 277-278, 434-436), so none of it existed in the prediluvian world.

lol

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote: Make the boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

Awkward...

Y'see, the longest wooden ships in modern use are only about 300 feet and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. Even with modern sealants and construction techniques, we just can't build seaworthy vessels of the size you describe... how on Earth could primitive people around the Galilee hope to do the same?

Btw, for those following along from home, bear in mind that most of the largest European War-Galleys in the Elizabethan-Colonial era (the largest wooden ships ever mass-produced before the advent of metal seagoing craft) were still clocking in under 200 feet.

450 feet back in the BC's... physically and logically impossible. Even without turning them into zoos.

JJM wrote:That is Genesis 6:14 and 15. (If you decide to look it up in a Bible and find the wording different do not call me a lier. Different Bibles will have different translations.)

So you're saying that the size of the Ark will vary from Bible to Bible? Surely that means that those can't be accurate measurements, right?


Look, save me some time here, go read this: http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

The size won't vary but the wordings of things might. The ancients built many things that would seem inpossible.If something found on a mountain fits those exct measurements it must be Noahs Ark.

My God, where's JJM's trainer. A towel, has anyone got a towel....?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:

Sultan Of Surreal wrote:

JJM wrote: Scientific proof: There has been something found on a mountain in Iran that looks like a ship of some sort.

holy shit i'm convinced

What is your theory on how that clam got on that mountain?

Basic Tectonics covers that rather neatly.

Perhaps it'd be to your benefit to go actually read an elementary earth-sciences book before attempting to wade into the middle of an online debate? You'd be far better equipped to avoid the 'ingnoramus' label that way...

For those of you that believe in Carbon Dating it has shown that the clam fossil was about 50,000 years old however I do not believe that carbon dating is accurate. It must have some variation to it because they can't tell you the exact date.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:The gospels were written at that time. A person an forget the details but a person walking on water is something that you are not going to forget.

Oh really?

Well then remind me, who was it who went to the tomb to witness Jesus' resurrection? How many people attended the empty tomb?

Was it:

A: Mary alone (John 20:1)? A total of 1.
B: Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? A total of 2.
C: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? A total of 3.
D: The women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem––possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1, see 23:55)? More than 4.

After all, remembering who was present at the scene of Christ's apparent resurrection is something that you are not going to forget, right?

Later the Apostles also went to the tomb and seen him.

FAIL.

The timing of the apostle's visit to the tomb has zero relevance to the question asked.

Now go back and answer the actual question I asked you. Who first went to Jesus' tomb and discovered it empty, which one of the 100% accurate apostle accounts is accurate, and which three of the 100% accurate apostle accounts are inaccurate?

Simple question, the answer should be right there in your completely infallible and consistent Bible, why the difficulty?

The apostles visit still happen. They witnessed the resurrection first hand.

JJM wrote:The size won't vary but the wordings of things might.

But all of these alternative wordings are still 100% accurate, even when they contradict each other... right?

JJM wrote:The ancients built many things that would seem inpossible.

But only in Religious textbooks... very strange.

Please point out all of the other seemingly impossible things that antediluvian man supposedly built. I'm sure that your long and well evidenced citations will seal this debate once and for all.

JJM wrote:If something found on a mountain fits those exct measurements it must be Noahs Ark.

Not really. It could be any number of other wooden objects.

But anyway, let's humour you for a bit. Please link me to some proof that these alleged bits of wood fit (1) were found atop Ararat, (2) that they are vaguely ship-shaped, and (3) that they fit the exact measurements described in your Bible of choice.

I'm going to go put the kettle on. I expect significant evidence (Remember: evidence, not idle hearsay and conjecture) to await me on my return.

JJM wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

JJM wrote:The gospels were written at that time. A person an forget the details but a person walking on water is something that you are not going to forget.

Oh really?

Well then remind me, who was it who went to the tomb to witness Jesus' resurrection? How many people attended the empty tomb?

Was it:

A: Mary alone (John 20:1)? A total of 1.
B: Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? A total of 2.
C: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? A total of 3.
D: The women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem––possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1, see 23:55)? More than 4.

After all, remembering who was present at the scene of Christ's apparent resurrection is something that you are not going to forget, right?

Later the Apostles also went to the tomb and seen him.

FAIL.

The timing of the apostle's visit to the tomb has zero relevance to the question asked.

Now go back and answer the actual question I asked you. Who first went to Jesus' tomb and discovered it empty, which one of the 100% accurate apostle accounts is accurate, and which three of the 100% accurate apostle accounts are inaccurate?

Simple question, the answer should be right there in your completely infallible and consistent Bible, why the difficulty?

The apostles visit still happen. They witnessed the resurrection first hand.

You're missing the point. The alleged first-hand witnessing of the resurrection has literally fuck-all to do with the question that I asked you (and which you have twice been unable to answer).

Why, if the Bible is 100% accurate, does it contradict itself fourfold on a matter so important as the uncovering of Jesus' empty tomb and the appearance of angels?

No more deflections and question-dodges. Give us an answer.

Why are you finding this so difficult?

Hey, JJM... I'll give you a hint:

A: Mary alone (John 20:1)? A total of 1.
B: Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? A total of 2.
C: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? A total of 3.
D: The women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem––possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1, see 23:55)? More than 4.

JJM wrote:The ancients built many things that would seem inpossible.

Yeah, but none of the ancients ever build something that was actually impossible.

Oh, Jim, so sad.

i think this is as good a time as any to point out a couple things


1) the gospels were all written well over 50 years after jesus' life, by people who clearly never knew him or witnessed anything he did.

2) the object on ararat, famous from a series of blurry satellite photos from like the 50s, is so clearly nothing more than a goddamn rock that i scarcely feel the need to add anything except some pictures of it.







wow that sure is conclusive proof that shadows exist

JJM wrote:For those of you that believe in Carbon Dating it has shown that the clam fossil was about 50,000 years old however I do not believe that carbon dating is accurate. It must have some variation to it because they can't tell you the exact date.

Wow.

JJM wrote:

Snorri 1234 wrote:

JJM wrote:

Sultan Of Surreal wrote:

b.k. bar wrote:Actually Josephus mentioned Him.

the authenticity of that document is questionable, at best.

however i do believe there was a man named jesus who we ascribe the christ story to. of course the story is patently untrue and 2,000 years of retellings hasn't helped it, but jesus the man probably existed. there is as much evidence for his existence as there is for any run-of-the-mill roman citizen/religious kook from back then and i see no reason to believe that a completely fabricated human somehow drew a cult following in the years before christianity became the state religion

The Bible records the events that happend with 100% accuracy. It was written by people who witnessed the events.

Dude, even if it was written by people who witnessed the events it wouldn't be 100% accurate. A group of people can't even describe an event they witnessed last week with 100% accuracy, let alone tens of years later.

The gospels were written at that time. A person an forget the details but a person walking on water is something that you are not going to forget.

No they were not.
The earliest gospel was written down no earlier than 70 AD, and is the only one purportedly written by someone who'd talked to someone who had actually seen Jesus.
Please engage in some elementary bible studies to go along with your basic earth sciences.

mpjh wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

mpjh wrote:Not so and you are an ignoranus.

Note to self: Do not misspell ignoramus if you are going to call someone one, as you will appear really really stoopit.


Honibaz

Note to BK -- satirical comments sometimes use malapropisms to make a point. I this case a play on ignore the anus in the comment being addressed.

The terms malapropism and the earlier variant malaprop come from Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 1775 play The Rivals, and in particular the character Mrs. Malaprop. Sheridan presumably named his character Mrs. Malaprop, who frequently misspoke (to great comic effect), in joking reference to the word malapropos.

I know it is a tough one, SLU may not get to Sheridan.

Totally irrelevant, but the name "Malaprop" comes for the word "Malapropism", not the other way around. "mal apropos" is French for "not appropriate". Oh, the ironings in it.

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

mpjh wrote:Not so and you are an ignoranus.

Note to self: Do not misspell ignoramus if you are going to call someone one, as you will appear really really stoopit.


Honibaz

Note to BK -- satirical comments sometimes use malapropisms to make a point. I this case a play on ignore the anus in the comment being addressed.

The terms malapropism and the earlier variant malaprop come from Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 1775 play The Rivals, and in particular the character Mrs. Malaprop. Sheridan presumably named his character Mrs. Malaprop, who frequently misspoke (to great comic effect), in joking reference to the word malapropos.

I know it is a tough one, SLU may not get to Sheridan.

Totally irrelevant, but the name "Malaprop" comes for the word "Malapropism", not the other way around. "mal apropos" is French for "not appropriate". Oh, the ironings in it.

Jones you are so mal apropos.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

mpjh wrote:Not so and you are an ignoranus.

Note to self: Do not misspell ignoramus if you are going to call someone one, as you will appear really really stoopit.


Honibaz

Note to BK -- satirical comments sometimes use malapropisms to make a point. I this case a play on ignore the anus in the comment being addressed.

The terms malapropism and the earlier variant malaprop come from Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 1775 play The Rivals, and in particular the character Mrs. Malaprop. Sheridan presumably named his character Mrs. Malaprop, who frequently misspoke (to great comic effect), in joking reference to the word malapropos.

I know it is a tough one, SLU may not get to Sheridan.

Totally irrelevant, but the name "Malaprop" comes for the word "Malapropism", not the other way around. "mal apropos" is French for "not appropriate". Oh, the ironings in it.

Jones you are so mal apropos.

I've heard this piece of mis-information so often it annoys me.
Also, I'm a clever git. (read, "smartarse")

thegreekdog wrote:Hey, JJM... I'll give you a hint:

A: Mary alone (John 20:1)? A total of 1.
B: Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? A total of 2.
C: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? A total of 3.
D: The women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem––possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1, see 23:55)? More than 4.

Thanks for the references, I would've never bothered to look them up if you hadn't provided them.

To answer your question DM, these verses are not spoken by God or Jesus but only by men. Therefore out of man's natural folly, perfection cannot be expected. The basic message stays the same but it's true that the minor details do not coincide. I can't say I know for sure but this contradiction seems like a very common error that we are all familiar with. Ever hear of the story of the fish that kept on getting bigger?

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

Gregrios wrote:Thanks for the references, I would've never bothered to look them up if you hadn't provided them.

Dude... relax. Someone (DM or Sultan?) made the point that there are differing accounts of who was at Jesus's tomb. I was simply pointing out that there are four different accounts from four different gospels written (ostensibly) by four different dudes. That's why there are contradictions on that particular issue.

Gregrios wrote:I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

Gregrios wrote:I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

How about this one:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=22&version=31
In this passage, the Israelites have settled in the plains of Moab, and the locals are worried that the Israelites are going to ravaged the land. So they send for this holy man Balaam and offer to pay him to curse the Israelites. God tells Balaam to refuse because the Israelites are bessed. The Moabites ask Balaam to curse the Israelites a second time, and this time God tells Balaam to go with them, but to only say what He tells him to. Then Balaam saddles his donkey and rides of to Moab. For some reason, this makes God very angry and he stands in the road with his sword drawn to oppose Balaam's progress. After a brief confrontation (where God says he would have killed Balaam if his donkey hadn't run off the road in fright), God again tells Balaam to continue on his way, but to only speak the words that God provides to him. So they get to Moab and three times Balaam instructs the Moabites to build altars and make sacrifices. The God visits Balaam and tells him what to say. The second time he does this, God (speaking through Balaam) says: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly, God changed his mind several times in this story.

StiffMittens wrote:

Gregrios wrote:I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

How about this one:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=22&version=31
In this passage, the Israelites have settled in the plains of Moab, and the locals are worried that the Israelites are going to ravaged the land. So they send for this holy man Balaam and offer to pay him to curse the Israelites. God tells Balaam to refuse because the Israelites are bessed. The Moabites ask Balaam to curse the Israelites a second time, and this time God tells Balaam to go with them, but to only say what He tells him to. Then Balaam saddles his donkey and rides of to Moab. For some reason, this makes God very angry and he stands in the road with his sword drawn to oppose Balaam's progress. After a brief confrontation (where God says he would have killed Balaam if his donkey hadn't run off the road in fright), God again tells Balaam to continue on his way, but to only speak the words that God provides to him. So they get to Moab and three times Balaam instructs the Moabites to build altars and make sacrifices. The God visits Balaam and tells him what to say. The second time he does this, God (speaking through Balaam) says: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly, God changed his mind several times in this story.

Since you have provided the link so generously, it will be very easy for people to compare the verse with what you wrote and will therefore see your deception.

thegreekdog wrote:

Gregrios wrote:Thanks for the references, I would've never bothered to look them up if you hadn't provided them.

Dude... relax. Someone (DM or Sultan?) made the point that there are differing accounts of who was at Jesus's tomb. I was simply pointing out that there are four different accounts from four different gospels written (ostensibly) by four different dudes. That's why there are contradictions on that particular issue.

What's your problem, dog? I was thanking you man, geeze louise, get a grip on reality will you?