DoctorAlien:
4everGod,

It's hard enough dealing with ignorance, but I think becomes nearly impossible to cure when dishonesty is mixed with it.

For somebody who claims that he is rational to pretend as if he doesn't know(maybe he really doesn't know) that "Mary and Martha went to market" is not the same thing as "only Mary and Martha went to market" is baffling.

My brother some mothers do have them. The mixture of ignorance and dishonesty is a deadly one and they wield that axe so well

Leave them to debate among themselves. No matter what you say they will never admit to anything. The only way i was able to get PastorAIO to admit his own yesterday was when he set a trap for me but found himself falling into the same trap he set while i stood outside the trap telling him ntoor.....

That was when he was able to finally admit OK THANK YOU! But even at that he now switched the argument to something else altogether. That was also trashed. A thread that i was able to close twice when i slammed his arguments using scripture but arrogance would never let him quit. Goalpost shifting and strawmen was in full effect last night.

Let these ones be. All of dem na same of same.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

If you refuse to accept that Matthew didn't mention all the women that went to the sepulchre, I think it's pointless quoting me.

John wrote that if all that Jesus did were to be recorded, the Bible would be too big. The gospel writers did their best to summarize a host of events their own way. Comparing the 4 accounts gives a more complete picture of Jesus' life.

Thank you.

I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.

Ranchhoddas:
This is actually very silly. You are yet to see AgentOfAllah's queries to a logical conclusion and you are declaring victory. Quite pathetic.

It's called desperation... For example, last election u saw PDP saying confidently that they would win Lagos State, they don't say it because it's true, they say it because it feels good...

alchemist13:

I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.

Anybody that reads Matthew alone has no contradiction to point out. Contradictions are only pointed out when two or more accounts exist.

Thank GOD we have the four accounts. And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

Thank you.

4everGod:




My brother some mothers do have them. The mixture of ignorance and dishonesty is a deadly one and they wield that axe so well

Leave them to debate among themselves. No matter what you say they will never admit to anything. The only way i was able to get Pastor AIO to admit his own yesterday was when he set a trap for me but found himself falling into the same trap he set while i stood outside the trap telling him ntoor.....

That was when he was able to finally admit OK THANK YOU! But even at that he now switched the argument to something else altogether. That was also trashed. A thread that i was able to close twice when i slammed his arguments using scripture but arrogance would never let him quit. Goalpost shifting and strawmen was in full effect last night.

Let these ones be. All of dem na same of same.

DoctorAlien:


Purple is a color intermediate between blue and red. In other words, purple has a shade of red in it.

Scarlet is a brilliant red color with a tinge of orange. Again, scarlet has a shade of red in it.

The evangelists agree whatever they put on Jesus, it had a shade of red in it.

Lol. There's a sharp contrast between both colours and they are easily noticeable by the human eyes, ergo, your definition from wikipedia, I suppose, makes it inconclusive.

The Evangelist were undecided about the true colour but agreed that the robe had an element of red?! Were they writing on their own accord?

jimmyjenseng:


Lol. There's a sharp contrast between both colours and they are easily noticeable by the human eyes, ergo, your definition from wikipedia, I suppose, makes it inconclusive.

The Evangelist were undecided about the true colour but agreed that the robe had an element of red?! Were they writing on their own accord?

Not so fast. Google the word "tritanopia".

jimmyjenseng:


Lol. There's a sharp contrast between both colours and they are easily noticeable by the human eyes, ergo, your definition from wikipedia, I suppose, makes it inconclusive.

The Evangelist were undecided about the true colour but agreed that the robe had an element of red?! Were they writing on their own accord?

The writers and by extension, the holy spirit had color blindness... So it's not their fault

DoctorAlien:


Anybody that reads Matthew alone has no contradiction to point out. Contradictions are only pointed out when two or more accounts exist.

Thank GOD we have the four accounts. And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

Thank you.

What you fail, understandably, to admit, is that both Matthew and John explicitly mentioned Mary Magdalene; but in completely incongruent contexts!

In Matthew's account, Mary Mag and the other Mary left with Joy (knowing what had happened), In John, Mary Mag came back crying and confused as to the whereabouts of Jesus' body. If this isn't a clear cut contradiction of two accounts, then we might as well believe that the earth is spherically flat.

4everGod:


He does not need to see anything to a logical conclussion. We have been down this road too many times and tomorrow another atheists will rehash the same argument as if we theists have nothing better to do with our time. This is why i urge you DoctorAlien to stop arguing with these guys.

If they really seek Knowledge then they know where to find it and certainly not on the pages of Nairaland which is always all argument with no admittance to ignorance.

Your assumption that anyone would ever arrive at any Logically conclusive position here on NL is actually what is pathetic

When someone asked a question about Saul's daughter and the state of her barreness, an answer was given and it was logically conclusive to everyone. The only reason a logical conclusion cannot be reached here is because there is a contradiction; attempting to change meaning of the word to suit your ends is disingenous at best and dishonest/pathetic at worst.

---

This is English language, if it's non-contradictory, it would be obvious to everyone, unless those that have put blinders on.

AgentOfAllah:


What you fail, understandably, to admit, is that both Matthew and John explicitly mentioned Mary Magdalene; but in completely incongruent contexts!

In Matthew's account, Mary Mag and the other Mary left with Joy (knowing what had happened), In John, Mary Mag came back crying and confused as to the whereabouts of Jesus' body. If this isn't a clear cut contradiction of two accounts, then we might as well believe that the earth is spherically flat.

I've told you, as long as you're gonna make that assertion, we have nothing to argue about.

All the "they" used in Matt. 28:1-9 apply not only to the two Marys.

Don't be moving round in a circle.

AgentOfAllah:


Yes, I admitted before that it is possible that Matthew didn't mention all the women, but this is not the only possibility. The other possibility is that Matthew's author believed only these two women were present. I understand why it is important to you that the first possibility is elevated to fact, but unless you can you show where Matthew indicated that not all the women were mentioned, your preference for the former possibility is based only on your own fabrications.

You see though, whether or not Matthew mentioned all the women is irrelevant to his story, the key point is that he mentioned the two that were central to the story (or shall we say legend?) he told. [b]The conclusion we can draw from that story, therefore, is that both Marys left the tomb in a joyful state; and this is inconsistent with the account in John, where Mary (came back a second time according to Felixomor and) was crying that the body of Jesus was missing.[/b]

U have mixed it up again,
Using "Mary" and "women" interchangeably as it suits u.


Never the less, goodluck. Thanks
I will now focus on contributions from others.

Cheers.

DoctorAlien:


I've told you, as long as you're gonna make that assertion, we have nothing to argue about.

All the "they" used in Matt. 28:1-9 apply not only to the two Marys.

Don't be moving round in a circle.

When a story mentions the names of two women, and shortly after, says "the women" nobody is in any doubt as to the identity of "the women" being referred to.

So, by all means, fabricate and obfuscate all you want, but Matthew is there for the discerning mind to read! Fabricate, obfuscate, then accuse others of being dishonest.

AgentOfAllah:


When a story mentions the names of two women, and shortly after, says "the women" nobody is in any doubt as to the identity of "the women" being referred to.

So, by all means, fabricate and obfuscate all you want, but Matthew is there for the discerning mind to read! Fabricate, obfuscate, then accuse others of being dishonest.

If that makes you sleep at night.

DoctorAlien:


Anybody that reads Matthew alone has no contradiction to point out. Contradictions are only pointed out when two or more accounts exist.

Thank GOD we have the four accounts. And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

Thank you.

Wow wow wow!

I mean where do I even begin. No one said a Matthew-alone reader will point out contradictions. But Matthew will be mischievously putting a huge strain on his readers' comprehension skills. I mean if you ask an hypothetical Matthew-alone reader if Mary Magdalene left the tomb with joy, what do you think his answer will be?

By the way Matthew-alone readers is not that hypothetical considering that John was written decades after Matthew and Matthew seemed to target a Jewish audience unlike, at least, Luke. Then there are likely those who would have read Matthew alone.

Finally, you seem to think that the Gospels fit each other like jigsaws, like lovers finishing each other's sentences. Well, that is both naive and wrong.

Each document were created to be self consistent (whether they achieved this is another story) and were atimes created to subvert another.

Ranchhoddas:
When someone asked a question about Saul's daughter and the state of her barreness, an answer was given and it was logically conclusive to everyone. The only reason a logical conclusion cannot be reached here is because there is a contradiction; attempting to change meaning of the word to suit your ends is disingenous at best and dishonest/pathetic at worst.

---

This is English language, if it's non-contradictory, it would be obvious to everyone, unless those that have put blinders on.

I suppose you have been blind to the antics of atheists here on NL and how they exhaust all the fallacies known to man in order to continue an argument. With all the english language that has been applied in a simple explanatory manner and then the very next comment would be

"I think you are confused" or "rubbish" or "Why are you dodging the question" or "You must think we are foolish if you feel this is how it happened" etc

Rancho i know you have a new year resolution which you are beginning to act out. Enjoy it but as far as i know only an honest soul can admit to error or ignorance in a debate but a dishonest one will simply call you dishonest even when they are the dishonest one. NL holds no value to serious minded people who see beyond its farcade. A place where i can hide and be telling someone else to leave his trust and confidence and join me when even my family do not know my real identity as an atheist.

A place where anyone can open their mouths and insult people who they are yet to sniff the intellectual air those people have sniffed. A place where we have more pretenders than realists. A place where lies flow like water which has broken free from its dam and everyone is invited to come and swim in the same river of lies. A place where people call my belief imaginary yet they write epistles against my "imaginary" belief and call my God all sorts of terrible things but still insist He is "imaginary". Then indeed i wonder what serious minded person would take it seriously.

AgentOfAllah:


When a story mentions the names of two women, and shortly after, says "the women" nobody is in any doubt as to the identity of "the women" being referred to.

So, by all means, fabricate and obfuscate all you want, but Matthew is there for the discerning mind to read! Fabricate, obfuscate, then accuse others of being dishonest.

Dude... It's called being a Christian

randomperson:

Dude... It's called being a Christian

If u dont have meaningful contribution, u must not comment.

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

This is what you said:

alchemist13:

I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

felixomor:


If u dont have meaningful contribution, u must not comment.

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

U seem pained... Is that because reasonable people are not buying your lies about the bible being consistent??... And u are quoting from a book where a man packed all land animals into a boat- millions of species of both carnivores and herbivores... The delusion is strong in you...
BTW, maybe u can show how consistent these are too... Judas bought the Potter's field, the chief priests bought the Potter's field... Of course, u can just pretend u are to busy or vexed to answer, I won't mind

DoctorAlien:


And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

In addition, for this part of Matthew to even harmonize with John, Mary couldn't have been amongst the "they" as she would have to have fled the tomb upon realizing the stone had been moved.

I and AgentOfAllah actually don't have much of a problem with other women in Matthew however inconsistent it may be. It is you that has to show that Mary was not part of the "they" that left with joy since in John the same Mary apparently fled without much joy.

alchemist13:


In addition, for this part of Matthew to even harmonize with John, Mary couldn't have been amongst the "they" as she would have to have fled the tomb upon realizing the stone had been moved.

I and AgentOfAllah actually don't have much of a problem with other women in Matthew however inconsistent it may be. It is you that has to show that Mary was not part of the "they" that left with joy since in John the same Mary apparently fled without much joy.

Do well to google "four accounts, one reality".

Thank you.

DoctorAlien:
This is what you said:

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

Never a more ferocious strain of cognitive bias than that which is expressed up there.

DoctorAlien:


Not so fast. Google the word "tritanopia".

Were the evangelists suffering from tritanopia? More so, this defect has nothing to do with the red colour - correct me if I'm wrong bro.

Am I the only one that noticed the last Christian that joined this conversation suffers from a severe and untreatable case of delusion of grandeur?

he seems not to pass up any opportunity to say how intelligent he is, how rich he is, how no serious person should take Nairaland religious debates seriously but debates from page 0-12+ pages almost every thread

all he's done on this thread so far is give nonexistent victory to his goons

AgentOfAllah:


Never a more ferocious strain of cognitive bias than that which is expressed up there.

If that's your way of acknowledging my mental astuteness, you're welcome.

randomperson:

U seem pained... Is that because reasonable people are not buying your lies about the bible being consistent??... And u are quoting from a book where a man packed all land animals into a boat- millions of species of both carnivores and herbivores... The delusion is strong in you...
BTW, maybe u can show how consistent these are too... Judas bought the Potter's field, the chief priests bought the Potter's field... Of course, u can just pretend u are to busy or vexed to answer, I won't mind

I know u have received wisdom from that proverb,
Cheers.

DoctorAlien:
This is what you said:

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

From this, I take it you are still re-sitting your WASSCE if you have taken it before because your comprehension skills are woefully lacking.

jimmyjenseng:


Were the evangelists suffering from tritanopia? More so, this defect has nothing to do with the red colour - correct me if I'm wrong bro.

Yes you're wrong. Wikipedia say patients who have tritanopia see purple as various shades of red.

hopefulLandlord:
Am I the only one that noticed the last Christian that joined this conversation suffers from a severe and untreatable case of delusion of grandeur?

he seems not to pass up any opportunity to say how intelligent he is, how rich he is, how no serious person shouldn't take Nairaland religious debates seriously but debates from page 0-12+ pages almost every thread

all he's done on this thread so far is give nonexistent victory to his goons

I don't think anyone is surprised...
This is someone who quotes himself and replies with another moniker on the same thread...

felixomor:


I know u have received wisdom from that proverb,
Cheers.

Nice try... The same guy who was given wisdom by god but didn't know that he shouldn't over-tax his people... Maybe the wisdom god gives is Aba-made. That will definitely explain why your comments are that silly