Jump to content

Sbbruin

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14935
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Sbbruin

  1. 3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    This never gets old.

    Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians by Dan Barker (August 2000)

    By Dan Barker

    An Easter Challenge For Christians

    I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

    Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

    The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

    Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

    I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

    Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

    Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

    "I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
    Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

    One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

    Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

    Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

    Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

    Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "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." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

    After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

    Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

    Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

    Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

    I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

    Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

    This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

    Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

    Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

    But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

    Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

    What time did the women visit the tomb?

    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?

    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?

    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: No (28:2)
    Mark: Yes (16:4)
    Luke: Yes (24:2)
    John: Yes (20:1)
    Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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?

    Matthew: Yes (28:9)
    John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
    After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

    Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
    Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
    Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
    John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
    Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
    Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

    Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
    Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
    Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
    John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
    Did the disciples believe the two men?

    Mark: No (16:13)
    Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
    What happened at the appearance?

    Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
    Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
    Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
    John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
    Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

    Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
    Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
    John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
    Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
    Where did the ascension take place?

    Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
    Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
    Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
    John: No ascension
    Paul: No ascension
    Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

     

    https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18418-leave-no-stone-unturned

    I read much but not all of this.  What needs to be remembered is none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts, written likely 30-100 years after Jesus’ death.  That there are discrepancies not only is logical, but to be expected.  In fact they were written in Greek, a language none of Jesus or his disciples spoke.  When written second, third or 10th hand, credibility wanes.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. I couldn't find a comprehensive documentaries thread, just either individual documentaries, or something like buried in a Netflix recommendations thread.  We were hunting for docs last night, because they can be really fascinating.  Started on "You are What You Eat" Netflix doc where they test out diet impacts on sets of identical twins.  It's interesting, not great.  But I like learning new things.  So what are some that people really like?

  3. 1 hour ago, UTexasFight said:

    You, Bill and every other Dodger fan will believe as soon as he hits his first HR, or otherwise does something else that hasn’t been done since Tungsten Arm O’Doyle

    …trust me. I’m an Astros fan. Flags fly forever.

    I'm not passing sentence one way or the other right now.  Just a lot of questions.  Trevor Bauer got tried in the court of public opinion and was found guilty, despite the fact that he very well may have been more of the victim in his case, despite what people may think of him personally.  

  4. Interesting article by Bill Plaschke in the Times.  I sort of feel like he does.  Something just feels off.

    Spoiler

    Column: Do you still believe in Shohei Ohtani? I’m not sure

     

    It still doesn’t feel right.

    It still doesn’t make sense.

    No matter how much Shohei Ohtani and his advisors attempt to clean it up, something in all this gambling garbage still stinks.

    When a smiling Ohtani strides on to the Dodger Stadium field for their home opener Thursday, I want to believe.

     

    I want to believe the game’s greatest player is as pure as his image.

    I want to believe the beloved global superstar is as honorable as he seems.

    I want to believe the legendary Ohtani magic, for which the Dodgers just paid $700 million, is real.

    But I just can’t. Not completely. Not yet. Maybe one day, but not now.

    The gambling controversy that has engulfed Ohtani in the past week has taken too many weird twists and wrong turns for me to feel completely confident in its ultimate destination.

    This could be nothing. This could be everything. So much is still unknown. So much is still so confusing. Leak by agonizing leak, the uncertainty chips away at the aura of an icon who was once thought to be untouchable.

     

    The doubt is ugly. The disbelief is unsettling. I don’t feel great about writing this. I’m guessing many Dodgers fans aren’t feeling so great about living it.

    Does Shohei Ohtani have a gambling problem, or a money management problem, or neither, or both?

    Is Shohei Ohtani devious enough to throw his closest colleague under the bus to save himself, or was he simply naive enough to allow that colleague to fleece him for millions?

    Ohtani has spoken, but has taken no questions.

    The season has started, but this isn’t ending.

    There remains a cloud over Ohtani’s previously pristine presence, and as much as everyone wants to believe otherwise, it’s not dissipating anytime soon.

    The storm hit last week when Ohtani’s name was linked to a federal investigation into illegal sports gambling. The Times reported his name appeared on nine wire transfers of $500,000 each, with the money allegedly going to suspected Orange County bookmaker Mathew Bowyer.

    In an interview with ESPN that was arranged by an Ohtani spokesman, Ohtani’s longtime translator Ippei Mizuhara said that Ohtani sent the money to cover Mizuhara’s gambling debts. The spokesman even gave ESPN a quote from Ohtani in which he said he knew about the payments.

    The story was repeated by Mizuhara and club executives to the entire Dodger team during a meeting in the Dodgers’ clubhouse in Seoul after their opening night win over the San Diego Padres.

    Early the next morning, however, Ohtani’s representatives completely changed course, claiming that Ohtani was unaware of the transfers and accusing Mizuhara of a “massive theft.”

    Mizuhara was promptly fired by the Dodgers, and, at a Monday afternoon news conference during which he did not take questions, Ohtani repeated the claim that he was fleeced.

    “He was stealing money from my bank account…he was lying to everyone,” Ohtani said in Japanese, later adding, “I of course have never had anything to do with sports betting and I absolutely have never sent money to a bookmaker. Honestly, I don’t think shock is the right word. I’ve spent the last week in something beyond that, which I can’t express in words. It’s hard to put that into words right now.”

    I can put it into several words.

    I am queasy with the notion that Mizuhara could mastermind a heist of at least $4.5 million without Ohtani or his accountants or his bankers or somebody noticing the money was missing.

    I am skeptical at the idea that any bookie would extend $4.5 million in credit to an ordinary gambler, and then collect that money without confirming its source to ensure that the money was not being stolen.

    Above all, I am incredulous at the notion Mizuhara could give a completely plausible Ohtani-approved explanation of the payments in one interview, then, seemingly hours later, be called a liar and accused of theft by the same Ohtani representatives.

    It doesn’t add up. Furthermore, it’s amazing that Ohtani’s crisis management teams — some of the same people who represented the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Danny Masterson — would not have realized it doesn’t add up.

    By the way, why does Ohtani still employ agent Nez Balelo? If Ohtani truly felt he had been robbed by his interpreter and was truly unaware of the missing money, he should have already fired the guy who is paid to protect him, no? Hmmm.

    Somebody is lying somewhere. Somebody is hiding something. I don’t know who is doing what, and I’m surely not alone.

    Although sports gambling is still illegal in California, it’s one of only 12 states where it’s still a crime and that doesn’t seem to be the biggest issue here.

    The biggest concern is that a player who is essentially a minority owner of the Dodgers has been linked to payments to an illegal bookmaking operation totaling at least $4.5 million amid swirls of changing narratives and conflicting stories.

    When your name is associated with that much cloaked money in that sort of rutted environment, what else is involved? How many different nasty elements can seep through the cracks and engulf you in your recklessness? If your highest paid player is that careless with $4.5 million, how much can you trust him to be the caretaker of your 4 million fans?

    It’s interesting that when Major League Baseball last week announced its investigation into the matter, it cited, “allegations involving Shohei Ohtani and Ippei Mizuhara.”

    Read that again. The statement didn’t just mention Mizuhara. It cited both of them.

    Neither man has been charged with a crime. Ohtani has not been accused of placing any bets, on baseball or otherwise, and in his prepared statement he said he has, “never bet on anything or bet for anyone on a sporting event or asked someone to bet for me.”

    Yet Mizuhara is ruined, and Ohtani is tainted, and it could be months before the truth finally emerges.

    There are no winners here. There is only a loss of innocence, a summer of purgatory and the sad cynicism surrounding a man previously known in Japan as, kanpeki na hito.

    “The perfect person.”

    Maybe one day, but not now.

     

  5. 4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Now that the rangers have a stupid corporate sleeve patch also, I’m wondering if that’s included on jerseys for sale as well. 

    While it is a sharp looking jersey, my personal opinion of grown men wearing jerseys to games is, well, not very high.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 45 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

    My wife looked up the retail price of the 15mg maintenance dose of Rinvoq. It’s $180 a pill. Epocrates doesn’t give the price of the typical 45mg starter dose, but that might be what you’re talking about. I don’t have a subscription to Epocrates, so no linky.

    My daughter has UC, and she just went on Rinvoq.

    Screenshot-2024-03-28-at-10-29-29-AM.jpg

     

    I'm on 45mg, so I think my EOB said $15K.  But my next batch will be scaled down to 15mg.  

  7. 15 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

    I gave up on this years ago.  It is truly baffling.

    Same.  She is convinced it'll get warmer or colder if she cranks it hard over one way or the other.  I could explain it 500 times and it won't compute for her.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...