forgot to add free.christians

"lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:eFZEd.53191$Xk.35188@pd7tw3no...

Here are some questions posed by Sean McHugh (as shown in Grinder's
first chronology) in your debate with him. Perhaps you'll finally
answer them now.

1. "Also strange is Jason's chronology with regard to Mary M crying
about the stolen body at JG 13. That was AFTER she had been told that
Jesus had risen (JG 6) and even AFTER she had met the risen Jesus (JG
10). If none of that convinced her that Jesus had risen, why would
she, at JG 4, after reporting that Jesus' dead body had been taken by
persons unknown from the tomb, assume that he would be there and
would be alive? With Jason's proposal, assuming that Jesus' dead
body had been taken made Mary believe that Jesus was alive, and
conversely, being told by an angel that Jesus had risen and then
actually meeting him, made her think he was dead. Is that likely?

2. "Again, why would Mary M and the others be bringing spices after
Mary M reported the tomb to be empty?"

3. "I should have been clearer. Unfortunately, I needed to chop back
on words to remain within the limits. From the second round I have
been unsuccessfully trying to get Jason to respond to the question of
whether the instruction to proceed to Galilee included the eleven
disciples/apostles or not. He just keeps finding ways to dance around
it. He wants the reader to believe that the instruction to go to
Galilee wasn't for Jesus' apostles. He won't come right out and say
it because he knows that that proposal would be blown right out of
the water. As for whether the instruction includes other disciples,
WHO CARES? I have said that before. It's a red herring. As I showed,
even in my last post, the instruction was intended to go to (to
include) the eleven disciples. That is what is relevant here."

"I am not interested in a word-game treadmill. It's not the first
time that Jason has tried to take us on this tangent. The only issue
here is whether the instruction to proceed to Galilee included the
eleven disciples/apostles or not. I keep challenging Jason to answer
that. He won't. As I have shown even in my last post, the primary
recipients of the direction to go to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus
were to be the eleven disciples/apostles. Commonsense should be
sufficient to tell one that. Anyway, Mark makes it perfectly clear:"

Mark 16:7 (KJV): 'But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that
he goeth before you into Galilee'

"Jason must fight against that because Luke indicates that they met
with Jesus that day in Jerusalem and seemed in no hurry to leave
there. If fact, as I have shown, by some gospel accounts they were
precluded from going to Galilee during Jesus' supposed forty days on
earth after the resurrection."

4. "If Peter left and ran for the tomb because of Mary M's report
that Jesus' body had been taken, it is highly unlikely that he would
hang around before leaving. Jason's chronology needs to delay the
departure of Peter till after the other women arrive and report that
Jesus had risen and had even met with them. If he waited for that
joyous report from the others, then it would be that report that
prompted Peter's running to the tomb, not Mary M's report of the
missing body. Unfortunately for Jason, the text makes it clear that
Peter ran to the tomb when he heard the missing body report. I even
demonstrated that the Greek conjunction ouv showed that Peter's
departure was based on Mary's report that the body had been taken.
Jason isn't game to come right out and say that, in his scenario,
Peter's run is dependent on the later report by other women. He
therefore dances around it and uses ambiguous statements like, 'I
agree that Peter's trip was 'due' to what he heard'."

5. "Jason has again simply ignored and snipped the voluminous proofs
that I have provided that show the instruction to stay in Jerusalem
took place on the day of the resurrection. If he could have pointed
to my errors, why hasn't he? He just keeps snipping/ignoring proofs
that I have been submitting on this matter since my first post.
Several times I have demonstrated step-by-step that the instruction
to stay in Jerusalem and Jesus' ascension occurred on the same day
as the resurrection. Contrary to Jason's false claim, that my proof
was based on what the text doesn't say; my proofs are based on what
the text DOES say.

If the instruction to stay in Jerusalem (till what was to be
Pentecost) was given on the day of the resurrection, then Jesus'
eleven disciples could not have obeyed the instruction given by the
angel and by Jesus, to go to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus.
This confirms a fatal conflict in the accounts, with Luke indicating
that they stayed in Jerusalem (as instructed) and Matthew indicating
that they proceeded to Galilee (as instructed) where they met Jesus.
Apart from being a contradiction, why is this so important? Well we
have already seen the incompatibility of the accounts of the women
discovery that Jesus had risen. Now we find an even bigger problem
with the account of the eleven disciples/apostles meeting with
Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, they are told to go to Galilee (75 miles
away) to meet the risen Jesus, which they do. In Luke they are told,
on the day of the resurrection, to stay in Jerusalem, which they do!
This and other problems mean the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are
collectively disastrous.

Jason was obliged to deal with the arguments that I have presented
pertaining to the dating of Jesus' instruction (to stay in Jerusalem)
and his ascension. He has not done that and now, with only his
concluding statement to go (no new arguments allowed) it is pretty
certain that he will have completely ignored (and usually snipped) my
arguments on this matter right through the debate. I have been in a
lot of debates (informal) with inerrantists and although fairly
conditioned, I wasn't ready for such disregard for an opponent's
arguments, especially considering that this debate is supposed to be
formal.

[...]

Jason knew before he wrote the chronology, that my arguments, that
the instruction to stay in Jerusalem occurred on the first day, have
featured prominently in my submissions. They have been given only
superficial and artificial mention by Jason. His chronology could
have provided specifics that dealt with those arguments.
Alternatively, he could have dealt with them separately. He had
plenty of room and by refraining from vast redundancies he could
have obtained more room."

6. "Let's just say that despite everything against it, Jason still
insists that the instruction occurred a week before Pentecost. Then
he still has a dreadful problem. This instruction would need to have
been given within +/- one day of 43 days (50 - one week) after the
crucifixion and 41 days after the resurrection. The instruction
occurs at JG 15:ii and iii. Jason has the apostles going to Galilee
to meet Jesus AFTER that, at JG 19. This would have occurred after
waiting for the "week later" (Pentecost) and then some days of
travel time. This could be no less than 49 days after the discovery
of the empty tomb, which would be outside the forty days that Jesus
supposedly walked the earth after his resurrection."

Jason responds with: "I'm thankful to Sean for pointing this out. I
believe I have a mistake in this part of my chronology. It appears
that Luke 24:36-39, which was point 14, fits much better into point
21.5 [and ultimately into point 20.] It can fit into this point
perfectly fine because it is still before Luke 24:40-53.

I'm glad Sean found that discrepancy. However, since it is the only
error that he found and since it can easily be inserted in point
21.5, he has hardly put a dent in the claim of inerrancy."

Sean responds with: "That 'fix' doesn't work either. Jason has not
got Luke 24:36-39 at JG 14, like he says there; he has it at JG 15.
That doesn't really matter though. Also, it isn't Luke 24:36-39;
it's Luke 24:36-49. It is actually verse 49 that contains the
instruction to stay in Jerusalem. It's that verse that Jason wants
to shift. But let's go to the real problem.

In the same post as his chronology, Jason also provided commentaries
to the relevant verses. I will use his own exegeses that to show
that this proposal can't fly. Here is Jason's own commentary on Luke
24:36-49:

[JG 21 ] Luke 24:36-49 - Jesus revealed Himself to them. They were
frightened and Jesus showed them His hands and feet. Jesus ate some
fish with them and told them a few things. Jesus summarized His
mission and what He did. He told them to wait in Jerusalem until the
Holy Spirit comes.
Luke 24:36-49 clearly describes an initial encounter with the risen
Jesus, where he needs to prove to the shocked eleven
disciples/apostles that he really has risen. He reminds them of the
prophecy that he would rise from the dead. Jason now wants to shift
this to between JG 21 and JG 22. The problem is that this is after
Jason places multiple major meetings by Jesus and the eleven
disciples/apostles. I'll let Jason describe the first two:

JG 15) John 20:19-25 - Jesus appeared to them. He showed them His
body and proved He was the risen Christ. Thomas was not present and
did not see Jesus, so he doubted.
JG 16) John 20:26-29 - Eight days later, Jesus appeared to Thomas and
proved to him that He was the risen Christ. [bold added]
Jesus also gave them the power at JG 15 (John 20:22-23).

There is another major Jesus-apostles meeting that Jason would now
place before Luke 24:36-49. At JG 19 (John 21:1-24) Jesus has as a
significant encounter with the eleven/disciples. This is set in
Galilee and is still before JG 21.5 where Jason wants to insert Luke
24:36-49 (set in Jerusalem). John 21 contains a relatively long
account of Jesus having another meeting with the eleven
disciples/apostles. In fact, the chapter is devoted to it. Verse 12
(JG 19:i) tells us that none of the eleven disciples/apostles
doubted:

John 21:12 (NRSV)
Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the
disciples dared to ask him, "Who are you?" because they knew it was
the Lord.
In Matthew 28:18-29 Jesus gives them the "Great Commission" (JG 20).

This means that Jason now wants to have Jesus revealing himself to
the eleven disciples/apostles and have them being frightened and
needing proof that Jesus is really alive, after he had multiple
major meetings with them, after he had shown them his wounds, after
he had eaten in front of them, after he had convinced them, after he
administered to them, after he commissioned them and after he
empowered them.

Needless to say, it doesn't work.

Additionally/alternatively the reader might try to find room to
insert forty days or ANY plurality of days in these lukan verses."
/end Sean McHugh's questions.

sharon