"Today you will be with me in Paradise"

[_guy sajer]

Or, alterntively it might mean that the person who wrote the resurrection story understood the cultural context of the times.

Well, that's exactly the point. During that time period women were not considered valid witnesses of anything, so a person during that time period would never have chosen a woman as an eyewitness if they were making it up. You're making assumptions again that are far outside the scope of your knowledge.

Since this point is so obvious, I assume then that all Biblican scholars agree that this proves that the New Testament narrative of the resurrection story is accurate history?

HOLD THE PRESSES: Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University and his sidekick Makelan have determined irrefutably that the New Testament is factual history. A woman saw Jesus first after the resurrection. Incredible!! What more proof does anyone need that the New Testament is factual history? Perterson and Makelan's paper on this topic is forthcoming in the top scholarly journal on Bible studies "Journal of Irrefutatable Biblical Evidences." Remember, you read it here first.

This is nonsensical reasoning. If a person making this story up understood the cultural norms of the time, he/she could very easily write the narrative with woman as the eyewitness. That the narrative identifies a woman as the eyewitness is necessarily evidence that it is factual history is ludicrous.

Mark Twain's novels accurately reflected the cultural mileau of his time, but this hardly means that Huck Finn is accurate history.

I hardly find this a compelling argument.

As unfamiliar as you are with biblical scholarship, this doesn't surprise me.

Being familiar with Biblical scholarship is irrelevant. I've critiqued the logic implied in your argument that a narrative that accurately reflects the cultural norms of the time must necessarily be historically factual. I've pointed out that Mark Twain (and countless other authors of fiction) accurately capture the cultural norms of their times in their works, but that the works are still fiction, nonetheless.

Moreover, is it possible that Harmony remembers correctly and DCP does not? Your response assumes that DCP has, a priori, a more reliable memory than Harmony. From where I sit, I have no basis to believe one is inherently more reliable than the other.

One is an accomplished scholar who has taught around the world, the other is an angry chick who has blatantly lied to my face, and continually lies to others about her testimony.

One is a Mormon apologist who has a very public record of taking almost any position, however internally inconsistent, morally offensive, or unreasonable, in order to defend pre-determined conclusions, not reached via processes of reasoning or evidence, but authoritatively via "divine" channels.

I have no reason to believe DCP liar, nor Harmony, but I do know from experience that people remember or do not remember events differently for a whole hosts of reasons. Believe it or not, Makelan, your hero is human, and like all humans, does not possess perfect recall on every convesation, discussion board exchange, etc.

I am not saying who is right and wrong here, just that I have no a priori reason to believe one right and the other wrong, and your hero worship of DCP and antipathy towards Harmony hardly constitute evidence in either cse.

[_maklelan]

Since this point is so obvious, I assume then that all Biblican scholars agree that this proves that the New Testament narrative of the resurrection story is accurate history?

HOLD THE PRESSES: Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University and his sidekick Makelan have determined irrefutably that the New Testament is factual history. A woman saw Jesus first after the resurrection. Incredible!! What more proof does anyone need that the New Testament is factual history? Perterson and Makelan's paper on this topic is forthcoming in the top scholarly journal on Bible studies "Journal of Irrefutatable Biblical Evidences." Remember, you read it here first.

This is nonsensical reasoning. If a person making this story up understood the cultural norms of the time, he/she could very easily write the narrative with woman as the eyewitness. That the narrative identifies a woman as the eyewitness is necessarily evidence that it is factual history is ludicrous.

1) I never said it proved anything at all.

2) You know nothing at all about biblical scholarship (based on my observations of your waxing biblical in your posts).

3) Your sarcasm betrays your inability to properly deal with this concern. If you don't know how to handle biblical scholarship then please stop.

Being familiar with Biblical scholarship is irrelevant.

Shall we put this in an academic journal? "No need to study biblical scholarship to be able to judge the accuracy of conclusions from biblical scholarship!"

I've had anough of this idiocy. You can't formulate a decent conclusion to save your life. You think you can determine the cultural plausibility of a conclusion with absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the culture. That's pathetic.

[_harmony]

Since this point is so obvious, I assume then that all Biblican scholars agree that this proves that the New Testament narrative of the resurrection story is accurate history?

HOLD THE PRESSES: Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University and his sidekick Makelan have determined irrefutably that the New Testament is factual history. A woman saw Jesus first after the resurrection. Incredible!! What more proof does anyone need that the New Testament is factual history? Perterson and Makelan's paper on this topic is forthcoming in the top scholarly journal on Bible studies "Journal of Irrefutatable Biblical Evidences." Remember, you read it here first.

This is nonsensical reasoning. If a person making this story up understood the cultural norms of the time, he/she could very easily write the narrative with woman as the eyewitness. That the narrative identifies a woman as the eyewitness is necessarily evidence that it is factual history is ludicrous.

1) I never said it proved anything at all.

2) You know nothing at all about biblical scholarship (based on my observations of your waxing biblical in your posts).

3) Your sarcasm betrays your inability to properly deal with this concern. If you don't know how to handle biblical scholarship then please stop.

Being familiar with Biblical scholarship is irrelevant.

Shall we put this in an academic journal? "No need to study biblical scholarship to be able to judge the accuracy of conclusions from biblical scholarship!"

I've had anough of this idiocy. You can't formulate a decent conclusion to save your life. You think you can determine the cultural plausibility of a conclusion with absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the culture. That's pathetic.

Since it's your logic, not your biblical scholarship, that he critiqued, his comments are valid. Try to keep up, Mak. He critiqued your logic and he says that very clearly:

I've critiqued the logic implied in your argument that a narrative that accurately reflects the cultural norms of the time must necessarily be historically factual.

I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to even BYU standards.

[_guy sajer]

Since this point is so obvious, I assume then that all Biblican scholars agree that this proves that the New Testament narrative of the resurrection story is accurate history?

HOLD THE PRESSES: Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University and his sidekick Makelan have determined irrefutably that the New Testament is factual history. A woman saw Jesus first after the resurrection. Incredible!! What more proof does anyone need that the New Testament is factual history? Perterson and Makelan's paper on this topic is forthcoming in the top scholarly journal on Bible studies "Journal of Irrefutatable Biblical Evidences." Remember, you read it here first.

This is nonsensical reasoning. If a person making this story up understood the cultural norms of the time, he/she could very easily write the narrative with woman as the eyewitness. That the narrative identifies a woman as the eyewitness is necessarily evidence that it is factual history is ludicrous.

1) I never said it proved anything at all.

2) You know nothing at all about biblical scholarship (based on my observations of your waxing biblical in your posts).

3) Your sarcasm betrays your inability to properly deal with this concern. If you don't know how to handle biblical scholarship then please stop.

Being familiar with Biblical scholarship is irrelevant.

Shall we put this in an academic journal? "No need to study biblical scholarship to be able to judge the accuracy of conclusions from biblical scholarship!"

I've had anough of this idiocy. You can't formulate a decent conclusion to save your life. You think you can determine the cultural plausibility of a conclusion with absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the culture. That's pathetic.

It's funny Mak that someone you evidently consider your intellectual inferior can figure out with ease what I mean while you obtusely thrash about completely missing point.

Let me repeat: this has nothing to do with Biblical scholarship; it has to do with the logic of your argument. The New Testament narrative has a women as the first witness of Christ's resurrection says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the historical accuracy of the New Testament account. At most what can be inferred (based on your argument) from this is that the person who wrote this account understood the cultural norms of the relevant time period. Trying to argue that this also says something about the historical accuracy of the account is a large and unsubstantiated leap in logic. It's your logic that's horribly flawed, not your Biblical Scholarship (though I have my doubts you are the expert you portray yourself to be).

Please do try to get a clue next time.

[_Jersey Girl]

A......chick? Define chick, maklelan.

Jersey Girl

I have grown up around grown women who call themselves chicks, so I don't think of it as a derogatory or diminutive title, but if others feel offended by the word then I apologize. I won't use it again.

Thanks for sharing. Could you answer the question now? Define chick, please.

Jersey Girl

[_Yoda]

A......chick? Define chick, maklelan.

Jersey Girl

I have grown up around grown women who call themselves chicks, so I don't think of it as a derogatory or diminutive title, but if others feel offended by the word then I apologize. I won't use it again.

Thanks for sharing. Could you answer the question now? Define chick, please.

Jersey Girl

I'm actually curious about this definition as well.

:)

[_ozemc]

Excellent answer BC.

Heres the definition from Mormon Doctrine:

That part of the spirit world inhabited by righteous spirits who are awaiting the day of their resurrection is called paradise. It is "a state of happiness, . . a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow." (Alma 40:11-14; 4 Ne. 14; Moro. 10:34; D&C 77:2, 5.) Then, in the day of the first ressurection, "the spirits of the righteous" shall be reunited with their bodies, and in immortal glory "the righteous shall have perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness." (2 Ne. 9:13-14.)

So, Mormons believe in Purgatory? Because, to me, that sounds exactly like Catholic Doctrine. You go somewhere to wait until you are resurrected.

[_harmony]

So, Mormons believe in Purgatory? Because, to me, that sounds exactly like Catholic Doctrine. You go somewhere to wait until you are resurrected.

I'm not sure Purgatory and paradise are exactly the same. Isn't Purgatory more like the spirit prison?

[_ozemc]

So, Mormons believe in Purgatory? Because, to me, that sounds exactly like Catholic Doctrine. You go somewhere to wait until you are resurrected.

I'm not sure Purgatory and paradise are exactly the same. Isn't Purgatory more like the spirit prison?

Well, I'm not Catholic, but I always thought it was pretty much the way I decsribed it.

I took up the task of going to the source:

From http://www.catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031).

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

Now, to me that sounds remarkably like the doctrine that you can have the Gospel preached to you after you die, so that you can be found worthy

Two Judgments

When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59).
[/i]

Interesting.

[_moksha]

So, Mormons believe in Purgatory? Because, to me, that sounds exactly like Catholic Doctrine. You go somewhere to wait until you are resurrected.

I'm not sure Purgatory and paradise are exactly the same. Isn't Purgatory more like the spirit prison?

Yes, except you your linens and towels are changed more often in Spirit Prison. Paradise on the other hand is more like Caesar's Palace, except Jesus is appearing in the Main Room.