Re: not one stone upon another

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #71

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:20 pm [Replying to 1213 in post #61]
For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
They entered in, and didn’t find the Lord Jesus’ body.
Therefore Mary Magdalene ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!”
Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel.
Therefore Peter and the other disciple went out, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.
Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth.
Here you have the disciples finding the tomb empty and going home, then the angels appearing to the women in Luke before they ran to tell the disciples about the tomb being empty.
Go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.”
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and didn’t know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?”
Here you have the women running "with fear and great joy" to give the disciples the message from Matthew's angel, then a distraught Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus but not recognizing him, still thinking him dead because no angel had told her otherwise.
1213 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:04 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:20 pm Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel....
Yes, there was many things going on that day. First the women went to the tomb, found it empty, went to the others and told them that it is empty, then went back to the tomb and wondered what is going on, the men went then away while at least Mary stayed and was sad until the angels and Jesus...
That's pretty evasive, too, but at least you don't strawman the argument. But you do cherry pick a few bits of the story that don't contradict and ignore the points that do. Points that A to A made like Matthew says that Mary saw Jesus before she reported to the disciples, but John's story has her still thinking he's dead. To ignore all that and just pick a couple of bits of a conflicting story and ignore all the rest...well, I don't want to hammer away at it, but this does not make the Resurrection accounts credible, but renders the attempted apologetic incredible.

Maybe the idea is for the Believer to tell themselves it works, but even that's hard to believe. It's more like 'I can still pretend I wasn't proved wrong or I never had to accept that my argument didn't work. Some day I must ask a deconverted Bible -apologist just what they were thinking when they presented such self deceptive arguments.

I suppose Personals are the less pleasant parts of apologetics, but the what is done (what is the Bible? False) the How is known (How it it wrong? It was written by people who did not know and made stuff up) and the Why is still a mystery. Why do believers try to prop up a case that is long since collapsed. Well, I suspect that much of it hopes that the huge majority of people won't ever get to hear the arguments, and even if they do, they will be so biased, they will accept any Bible apologetic no matter how poor.

Which brings me back to the resurrection, if not to the destruction of the Temple. :) I'm thinking of Stobel's apologetic and that supposed ex -cop who swore the resurrection would stand up in a court of Law. Quite clearly it wouldn't and the Evangelists would probably find themselves up on a perjury charge. So why does he make such claims? Because he is banking on his listeners Wanting to agree with him. Strobel is different. His latest effort was the 'I used to be an atheist - like you, until....' and he cites the evidence for the resurrection. Impartially investigated, he claims. And yet all he does is cite Christian apologetics and the atheist side never get a mention. Blatant bias and lies, and I am just left to wonder whether he knows it or is so far in denial that he no longer knows anything?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #72

Post by TRANSPONDER »

P.s Indulge me :) but I was even thinking of a separate thread. But maybe not. But I reminded by this apologetic of picking all the bits that don't contradict and ignoring all the parts of the testimonies that do as the 'Bethlehem ploy'. In which the argument is 'look the basis of the story is 'Jesus was born in Bethlehem'. (because that's about all that doesn't mutually self -destruct). But that is not the supportive evidence but the initial claim, and moreover exposes the reason the nativities were written at all - it had become uncomfortably clear to some Christians that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but wasn't. So the Bible had to be added to so as to 'correct' te history.

And that resulting in two totally conflicting stories that would have any judge sending Matthew and Luke down with 10 years for perjury, this dirties the hands of the writers of the resurrections, and to say 'The women went to the tomb, found it empty and therefore Jesus rose, is rather the claim than the evidence as the 'evidence' collapses in court. You can't even rely on the message that Jesus rose as John doesn't have it. You can't rely on who saw Jesus. The women on the way from the tomb? Mary after she's gone back to the Tomb? Simon after he'd been to the tomb? Or the disciples in the evening which is so well known as to be accepted as fact, but Matthew has no such evening appearance at all.

Well throw Matthew in the bin. :D An opponent of mine on the nativity in fact opted for Luke as being more the historical option and threw Matthew's account in the bin (though indignantly denying afterwards that he'd done any such thing). But effectively the 'Bethlehem ploy' here is 'Jesus rose from the dead!', which is the claim rather than the evidence, though the empty tomb Is the agreed evidence in all four, even Mark who (credibly) ends there.

And in a frantic attempt to scrabble back to topic, as the resurrection goes one stone is indeed not left upon another, except of course the wailing wall of the empty tomb.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #73

Post by JehovahsWitness »

brunumb wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:35 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:53 am For example if the goal is to harmonize the gospel narraives, then there existing more than one angel in heaven is indeed a plausible explanation.
How is that a plausible explanation for the description of the event as written in the Bible?
Because according to the bible there are many angels. Proposing there was more than one is a definite possibility.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #74

Post by brunumb »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:24 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:35 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:53 am For example if the goal is to harmonize the gospel narraives, then there existing more than one angel in heaven is indeed a plausible explanation.
How is that a plausible explanation for the description of the event as written in the Bible?
Because according to the bible there are many angels. Proposing there was more than one is a definite possibility.
The issue is not the existence of multiple angels but with the inconsistency of their reported involvement in the resurrection scenario. Hey, look over there, it's a pigeon.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #75

Post by JehovahsWitness »

brunumb wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:31 pm
The issue is not the existence of multiple angels but with the inconsistency of their reported involvement in the resurrection scenario.
What do you mean by "inconsistency of their reported involvement" ? To be consistent means to be regular. None of the gospel accounts report angelic appearances as a regular occurance; nor can one find any biblical pattern as to their movements and actions. Indeed, the only consistent thing would be such appearances and involvments are intrinsicly inconsistent!

Upon what basis is this above problematic ?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #76

Post by Athetotheist »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:26 am
brunumb wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:31 pm
The issue is not the existence of multiple angels but with the inconsistency of their reported involvement in the resurrection scenario.
What do you mean by "inconsistency of their reported involvement" ? To be consistent means to be regular. None of the gospel accounts report angelic appearances as a regular occurance; nor can one find any biblical pattern as to their movements and actions. Indeed, the only consistent thing would be such appearances and involvments are intrinsicly inconsistent!

Upon what basis is this above problematic ?
The inconsistency is that the accounts are inconsistent with each other. That can be seen in the reactions of the women. Luke has the women encounter angels inside the tomb after totally missing Matthew's angel outside the tomb, then puts Mary Magdalene first on his list of women who recount an angelic encounter which Mary doesn't have at all according to John. Mary is still grief-stricken when she first sees Jesus in John after running in fear and "great joy" and first sees him in Matthew. Mary has an angelic encounter before the disciples go to the tomb in Luke, but doesn't see an angel until after they leave the tomb in John.....

That's what's inconsistent.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #77

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:21 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:26 am
brunumb wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:31 pm
The issue is not the existence of multiple angels but with the inconsistency of their reported involvement in the resurrection scenario.
What do you mean by "inconsistency of their reported involvement" ? To be consistent means to be regular. None of the gospel accounts report angelic appearances as a regular occurance; nor can one find any biblical pattern as to their movements and actions. Indeed, the only consistent thing would be such appearances and involvments are intrinsicly inconsistent!

Upon what basis is this above problematic ?
The inconsistency is that the accounts are inconsistent with each other. That can be seen in the reactions of the women. Luke has the women encounter angels inside the tomb after totally missing Matthew's angel outside the tomb, then puts Mary Magdalene first on his list of women who recount an angelic encounter which Mary doesn't have at all according to John. Mary is still grief-stricken when she first sees Jesus in John after running in fear and "great joy" and first sees him in Matthew. Mary has an angelic encounter before the disciples go to the tomb in Luke, but doesn't see an angel until after they leave the tomb in John.....

That's what's inconsistent.

So? So WHAT?! Why is that "inconsistency" problematic? One reports an angel does one thing, another reports it (or they) do another. As long as they can be harmonized (ie one can come up with a plausible explanation) , what's the problem?



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #78

Post by Athetotheist »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:51 am
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:21 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:26 am
brunumb wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:31 pm
The issue is not the existence of multiple angels but with the inconsistency of their reported involvement in the resurrection scenario.
What do you mean by "inconsistency of their reported involvement" ? To be consistent means to be regular. None of the gospel accounts report angelic appearances as a regular occurance; nor can one find any biblical pattern as to their movements and actions. Indeed, the only consistent thing would be such appearances and involvments are intrinsicly inconsistent!

Upon what basis is this above problematic ?
The inconsistency is that the accounts are inconsistent with each other. That can be seen in the reactions of the women. Luke has the women encounter angels inside the tomb after totally missing Matthew's angel outside the tomb, then puts Mary Magdalene first on his list of women who recount an angelic encounter which Mary doesn't have at all according to John. Mary is still grief-stricken when she first sees Jesus in John after running in fear and "great joy" and first sees him in Matthew. Mary has an angelic encounter before the disciples go to the tomb in Luke, but doesn't see an angel until after they leave the tomb in John.....

That's what's inconsistent.

So? So WHAT?! Why is that "inconsistency" problematic? One reports an angel does one thing, another reports it (or they) do another. As long as they can be harmonized (ie one can come up with a plausible explanation) , what's the problem?
What is the "plausible explanation" for Mary Magdalene's inconsistent behavior?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #79

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:09 am What is the "plausible explanation" for Mary Magdalene's inconsistent behavior?
I thought you were asking about the angels. Have we finished discussing the angelic appearances ?
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:21 am Luke has the women encounter angels inside the tomb after totally missing Matthew's angel outside the tomb, then puts Mary Magdalene first on his list of women who recount an angelic encounter which Mary doesn't have at all according to John. Mary is still grief-stricken when she first sees Jesus in John after running in fear and "great joy" and first sees him in Matthew. Mary has an angelic encounter before the disciples go to the tomb in Luke, but doesn't see an angel until after they leave the tomb in John...



Do you concede that there being more than one angel (and angels having the ability to move from one spot to another) could be a plausible explanation as to why the reports about where they were seen vary?
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #80

Post by Athetotheist »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:21 am
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:09 am What is the "plausible explanation" for Mary Magdalene's inconsistent behavior?
I thought you were asking about the angels. Have we finished discussing the angelic appearances ?

Do you concede that there being more than one angel (and angels having the ability to move from one spot to another) could be a plausible explanation as to why the reports about where they were seen vary?
I'm asking about inconsistency.

Do you concede that there's no plausible explanation for Mary Magdalene's inconsistent behavior?

Post Reply