Resurrecting The Problems Of The Resurrection Of Jesus

[Mythra]

The events after the Resurrection didn't happen within the period of one day and night. Jesus' first appearance was to His disciples at Jerusalem and then to the two disciples on the road to Emmasus may have happened in the same day.

 

Amy - I know you won't get what I'm saying here.

 

But, everything you say refers to the Bible as though each and every word was the truth, and the only objective is to piece all of these words together, and you'll arrive at the answer. This works when you're discussing these things with other believers.

 

When the real truth is, there isn't a shred of legitimate evidence to lead a person to believe that anything in the gospels actually happened.

 

No archaeology. No external sources. Nothing.

 

You can't even remotely give an accurate date as to when these were even written.

 

P52 has a fifty year dating range - and that's only based on paleographical analysis.

 

The Fab Four could all be a product of second century writing.

 

It simply won't work to cite your own religious canon to convince unbelievers of anything.

 

 

It all comes down to the perceived authority of the writings.

 

A christian will say - the Bible says - this

 

And the non-christian says

 

We might as well quote the Iliad to see what it has to say.

[dibby]

 

The events after the Resurrection didn't happen within the period of one day and night. Jesus' first appearance was to His disciples at Jerusalem and then to the two disciples on the road to Emmasus may have happened in the same day.

 

 

Concerning the question of the soldiers story as to why they fled the tomb, most likely one or more of them or someone in close connection with these guys became a Christian and later related the story.

 

Why is this so hard to believe?

 

But then maybe not! Are you really basing your faith on the "shifting sands" of a maybe?

[mwc]

[bunch useless crap deleted]

 

No. I'm not going to construct a time line because the Gospels don't. The appearances of Jesus happened over a period of forty days.

So you officially admit the challenge cannot be met? That a timeline cannot be established?

 

 

Concerning the question of the soldiers story as to why they fled the tomb, most likely one or more of them or someone in close connection with these guys became a Christian and later related the story.

And just how many guards were there? Were they Roman soldiers or just Jewish temple guards? Was the tomb sealed or was there just a rock rolled in the way? Why all the protection anyway? They didn't care when the cult took the body away but suddenly they posted a bunch of guards at the tomb so they couldn't fake a resurrection? If this was a concern why not deny access altogether and just toss him in with the convicts (the logical choice)? Oh, because they wanted to do their friend Joseph a favor? So then where were the guards in the other tellings if some were still there at the same time as the women? They weren't important enough to be mentioned, right? Only Matthew was bothered by the guards so his perspective told of them. How about he was the only conspirist in the lot and it shows? How about the tombs of the period also had rather small rocks at their entrances? The woman could have rolled it themselves and crawled in (yes, you had to crawl). How about the whole thing is a giant load?

 

Why is this so hard to believe?

Because I'm not a retarded chimp?

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

wow.... what can i say that hasnt been said.

 

im just waiting for skeptic.... i know he's gonna tear this one up !!

[Ouroboros]

Concerning the question of the soldiers story as to why they fled the tomb, most likely one or more of them or someone in close connection with these guys became a Christian and later related the story.

 

Why is this so hard to believe?

Because it ties back to the definition of the word EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT. I wrote in uppercase to make it easy to read.

 

Actually I think Matthew heard it from his uncle, that heard it from his neigbor, that heard it from his mailmail, that heard it from his grandma, that heard it from some of her friends, that heard it from someone that had a vision from Jesus of the event... That's very plausible too.

 

Or maybe Matthew heard it from Bob that heard it in a voice in his head...

 

You see the problem is that Matthew wasn't one of the soldiers. Matthew didn't travel back and forth between the grave the women and the soldiers as a spirit and saw it all. And so on.

 

And the probem with the Gospels overall, is that only the author is telling the story. The author doesn't give any arguments for the "chain of evidence" in these stories. And you'll say, "it doesn't have to be because they didn't do that back than." Which is a valid argument, if and only if the gospels were written by man for man. God supposedly knew about us today, so he woiuld know what "chain of evidence" or "custody of evidence" means, and he would know that a book that supposedly is an "evidence" for something wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny of our time. But God didn't do that, out of a couple of reasons, one that he doesn't exist, or two that the stories are not evidence, or three God is incompetent, or four God can not see the future or know about us at that time, etc...

 

I've seen that Christians are about 3 or 4 times more likely to believe urban legends, why is that? Are they prone to take other peoples words at face value?

 

---edit---

 

Amy, lets turn the tables again, another explanation to why the story about the guard is in Matthew is to try to explain away the rumours that Jesus wasn't resurrected during Matthews time. Let me rephrase that.

 

During the authors time (lets say Matthew) there was a rumour that Jesus wasn't resurrected, but the disciples stole his body. And the rumour was going around the Jews.

 

Now, the author wanted to give a reason to why that rumour was going around, and he invented a new rumour, that the guards made it up together with the priests.

 

Why is THAT so hard to believe? That is something we DO KNOW happens, even today, in media or religions of every kind! So that is an observed phenomenon that is reoccuring all the time, while resurrection is not. What is more plausible? The things that happens all the time, or the thing that is impossible to happen?

[RHEMtron]

awwww good ol' eyewitness accounts and rumors.... that reminds me of Jesus being tempted by Satan. Nobody was there except Jesus and Satan, yet the authors quote like they were there ?!?

[RHEMtron]

Jesus' first appearance was to His disciples at Jerusalem and then to the two disciples on the road to Emmasus may have happened in the same day.

Great, now you just contradicted yourself:

I believe Jesus appeared to the women first and then to Mary Magdalene.

Which contradicts Mark, who says Jesus first appeared to Mary. And Paul in 1 Cor 15:5 claims that it was Cephas who saw him first.

 

Matthew and Mark are tying their experience into the words Jesus spoke at His ascension. Instead of going into a lot of detail concerning all the appearances of Jesus in His post resurrection body they are summing up the narrative.

Matthew speaks of the ascension, and granted, he doesnt give a definite date and time. Mark and Luke on the other hand, shows that it happened that same day he was resurrected. Read their words carefully.

 

Luke and John give further details and Acts tells us that Jesus was with the disciples for forty days.

No, as stated, Luke shows that Jesus was there for only a day. John gives the implication that Jesus was around for about 8 days. Acts is the one that states he was here for 40 days, which if it is written by Luke like most Christians claim, contradicts his own Gospel.

 

Mark has phrases such as "Later" and "Much later."

Which Bible version are you reading? Mine doesnt say "Later" or "Much later". Mine says "After" and "Afterwards".

 

John talks about an appearance of Jesus with just the eleven disciples present and then eight days later He appeared to Thomas.

So he appears to all of them in Galilee [Matt 28:16-17], 2 in the country and to 11 of them "as they sat at meat" [Mark 16:12,14], 2 at Emmaus and then to all of them in room in Jerusalem [Luke 24:31, 36], Then again in a room with all except Thomas and then to Thomas [John 20:19]. And to top it all off, after seeing him sooooOOooo many times, in some accounts, they still didnt believe it was him, or was amazed each time as if it were the first time they saw him. Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

The events after the Resurrection didn't happen within the period of one day and night.

<edit>

No. I'm not going to construct a time line because the Gospels don't. The appearances of Jesus happened over a period of forty days.

I already established 2 claim it was the same day, 1 implies a couple of days, another says 40 days. This is blatant contradiction. You did try to construct a timeline, but consciously or subconsciously, you knew it couldnt be done because the accounts contradict each other. Like MWC said... youre just admitting the challenge cannot be met.

 

There are many things that the Gospels do agree with such as who saw the Resurrected Christ.

Yeah, but one says i saw him first, another says i did, another says we saw him together, another says we all some him together except for thomas, another says 2 of us saw him, another says we saw him in this town, another says no we saw him in another town, etc. etc. etc. How is that reliable?

 

People make the same claims, in the same manner, with UFO's, Bigfoot, Lochness Monster, the Boogie Man, Vampires, honest Politicians, but i bet you dont believe them....

 

Concerning the question of the soldiers story as to why they fled the tomb, most likely one or more of them or someone in close connection with these guys became a Christian and later related the story.

Reread what HanSolo wrote... But anyhow, the bible doesnt even say that. That's just your assumption. Dont be adding to the bible. Rhemember:

 

Proverbs 30:6

Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you be proved a liar.

 

Why is this so hard to believe?

Because that's not what the bible says. We use no mental gymnastics, we do not add any interpretations, we state the literal words of the bible. Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

[RHEMtron]

Read all the resurrection accounts together including Acts 1. Take all the pieces of the puzzle and piece them together. It's not hard to do.

That's what we did. You still havent really done it.

 

Like any eyewitness accounts of an event some leave out details, others do not.

It's not about omission. It's about the details that are there. They contradict each other.

 

Jesus was with the disciples forty days. These things happened with in that time period. I'm not going to construct a time line because no time line is given except the forty days.

Again, Mark and Luke clearly shows Jesus was only here for a day.

 

Why couldn't one gospel mention a stone and another say that it was sealed with Guards standing around? THE STONE WAS ROLLED AWAY FROM THE ENTRANCE. Jesus wasn't there. That's the message. Why couldn't the women find the stone rolled away and then enter the tomb? Another gospel mentions angels? All of these events happened.

Dont you mean, Why cant one gospel show the stone was rolled away after the women got there, and the others show it was rolled away before they got there?

 

What's the big deal? As you observed mwc, even a retarded chimp can understand this.

Yeeeeup.... even a retarded chimp can see these contradictions.

 

 

Why don't you tear it up? You were the one that asked the question.

I just did... read the post before yours: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry194655

[Ouroboros]

The logical conclusion is someone who was there related what happened.

Then the logical conclusion is that the author don't want to let us know that someone told him, because then it wouldn't be an eyewitness account anymore. It's just hearsay, rumours and urban legends.

 

Why can't you understand this concept?

 

If you want the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts then it has to be eyewitness accounts, not reporting hearsay.

 

If A tells B, and B tells C, did A tell C?

 

 

Read all the resurrection accounts together including Acts 1. Take all the pieces of the puzzle and piece them together. It's not hard to do. Like any eyewitness accounts of an event some leave out details, others do not. Jesus was with the disciples forty days. These things happened with in that time period. I'm not going to construct a time line because no time line is given except the forty days.

 

Why couldn't one gospel mention a stone and another say that it was sealed with Guards standing around? THE STONE WAS ROLLED AWAY FROM THE ENTRANCE. Jesus wasn't there. That's the message. Why couldn't the women find the stone rolled away and then enter the tomb? Another gospel mentions angels? All of these events happened.

 

What's the big deal? As you observed mwc, even a retarded chimp can understand this.

Only a retarded chimp doesn't understand what an EYEWITNESS is. An EYEWITNESS is someone with they own words, and their own accounts report something THEY SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES, not telling what someone ELSE saw!

 

Eyewitness is a noun, and it means a spectator who can describe what happened.

 

Notice the word "spectator".

 

Spectator means An observer of an event.

 

Observer means a person who becomes aware (of things or events) through the senses [syn: perceiver, beholder]

 

Here's some synonyms: beholder, bystander, looker-on, observer, passer-by, spectator, viewer, watcher, witness.

 

Did Matthew SEE the event with the guard? And you admit that he didn't, but heard it from a guard. That means that Guard was the witness, not Matthew. So Matthew is NOT a Witness.

 

With your own words: "even a retarded chimp can understand this."

[Ouroboros]

It's dishonest to claim the Gospel or any Gospel to be literally eyewitness accounts on all the stories, and the Gospels don't separate which story is what in the stories. Remember, Matthew does not in the Gospel of Matthew actually say that he as the author was there and touched Jesus. He's retelling the story of Jesus and the disciples and the tomb and all the miracles and all the stories that same way, as a third party, a narrator, for all of the stories. You don't know if the author is Matthew, and you don't know if the author saw any of the events.

 

You have to realize this, if I write an eyewitness account story, I would say something like "and Peter told me that..." and "then I saw him and touched him..." and "the guard Bobo told me that they conspired with priests to lie about ..." But not one single story is like that. Compare the Gospels to how Paul writes his letters, and maybe you understand the difference of a first hand account and a independent narration.

[Ouroboros]

Here's more:

 

Luke 22:39+

 

Jesus and the disciples go to mt of Olives.

Jesus separates himself from the disciples. "a stone's throw beyond them"

Jesus pray: "Father, if you are willing, take..."

And we're told he prayde earnestly and sweating blood.

Go back to the disciples, and they are... ASLEEP!

 

While they were still speaking a crowd came, with Judas, and Jesus was betrayed and brought away.

 

Now Amy, tell me, who saw and heard Jesus praying? Remember the disciples were sleeping, no one else there, and immediately after he woke them up they got busy and Jesus got taken away... Who saw and heard Jesus' prayer?

 

 

P.S. Which is not to say that the story of the guards is not important. Matt included it just like he included the story of Jesus temptation in the wilderness even though he was not an eyewitness of the event. He must have felt his sources were reliable. Doesn't a lawyer use witnesses to bulid his case? The beginnings of Christ resurrection were important and so he built his case using the witnesses who were there.

If I would take Matthew in for questioning in court, he would not be a reliable witness. Only the things that he saw with his own eyes would be eyewitness accounts, anything else is called "hearsay". That's what the court call it, and it's not admissible.

 

You are confusing Matthew with a judge or a jury. In the case of a story, the reader is the court, not Matthew. Matthew is on the witness stand. Not the people telling Matthew their stories.

 

And I can tell that these things are 20 miles above your head... *sigh*

 

Let me tell you an "eyewitness" story by me:

 

Deep down in the jungle lives a tribe of 50 people that never been outside their little village. They have never seen a man from outside their forrest, and no one from the outside world have ever seen them.

 

One day, Muaghaba have to go and get some water. And while she get water with her plastic bucket, she get stung by a bee, and she get very sick. After a few days she dies in severe pains.

 

Now tell me, can you believe this story? Do you consider this a true eyewitness story?

[Ouroboros]

You really don't get it at all do you?

 

They are not eyewitnesses because 50% or more of the stories they tell they had to hear from someone else. Reduce the Gospels with those 50% and you barely have anything left. And you can't see how all the stories are told the same way, as a narrator in a fiction book, not as an eyewitness would do.

 

If you read Paul's letters they say "and I said" or "then I went to" or "after that I told him". It's I, Me, Myself all over the place. Not "Paul", "he", "them". The Letters talk in FIRST PERSON.

 

The Gospels talks in THIRD PERSON. They did. He saw. They went. They heard.

 

And yet, the Gospels were written AFTER Pauls letters, so it had nothing to do with illiteracy, style or form. Unless the true style and form was exactly to tell a fictional story or being a script for a play.

 

But unfortunately you are blinded by your religion, and you can't see this even if you want to.

 

--edit--

 

And lets say that Paul met the eyewitness disciples and lets say they actually existed. Realize this, they wouldn't write the Gospels in terms of "and Matthew said to Jesus" if it was Matthew writing the Gospel.

 

I haven't so far seen you write "Amy Marie said: Well, we are right back at the same old argument". You write like I do. You're using words as "You", "I", Me", Myself", "You're"... The Gospels don't have that at all from the perspective of the author. The Authors never say "And then I talked to Jesus" or "And then Jesus told me". It's only "And Jesus told Peter" or "Jesus told Matthew" or "Jesus told Mark"...

[Ouroboros]

Matthew was an eyewitness of the Resurrected Christ as is recorded in his gospel. Peter says in the book of Acts that the disciples all were eyewitnesses. As to the story in Luke, The disciples may have heard this prayer or part of it and then they fell asleep. Perhaps Jesus Himself spoke of what happened to Him in Gethsemane.

 

It's interesting to note that the disciples were brought to trial claiming to be eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. Surely you have read about it in the book of Acts.

You don't read much do you? And I'm really starting to wonder if you even think much, sorry for being rude, but I really do wonder...

 

When did Jesus tell the disciples? He didn't have a chance too. He woke them up and then he went and then he died.

 

Lets say Matthew was indeed an eyewitness (you should have seen that I made an comment based on that assumption in my previous post, but you didn't read it. Shame on you.)

 

Lets say Matthew was an eyewitness.

 

Lets pretend for a second Matthew indeed was an eyewitness.

 

If for a moment, let us suppose that Matthew was an eyewitness for real.

 

Should I say it again? Okay.

 

Let us for a few seconds imagine that Matthew for real was an eyewitness.

 

Have you seen it now? Lets assume this for a second.

 

Then explain why Matthew say things like these:

Mt 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

 

Mt 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.

 

Mt 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

 

If I was Matthew, I would have written "he saw me sitting at the tax collector's booth. Follow Me he told me, and I got up and followed him."

 

And I would write: "While Jesus was having dinner at MY house..."

 

Wouldn't you?

 

---edit---

 

Okay, I've been a witness in a real trial, and have been to several depositions. When I gave my testimony I said "and then I saw...", not once, not one single time did I say "and then Hans saw...", because then they would think it was another Hans than me!

[Ouroboros]

Back to the argument about Paul. Did he meet and talk to eyewitnesses who had seen and touched the resurrected Jesus? Namely the apostles? Or the five hundred? Is this a hoax too?

No, the argument is about the Gospels and the authors of the Gospels, and the names attributed to the Gospels. The argument is if the authors of the gospels are the same people that actually was the events. You believe strongly that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, without considering that 50,000 people could have been named Matthew in the time of Jesus and afterwards. Which one of them? The same or another? Or is the name just made up?

 

Actually the Gospel is considered to be written by an anonymous author, and not the disciple Matthew. Here's some words from the scribes of our time:

 

Critical biblical scholars, like Herman N. Ridderbos in his book Matthew, do not consider the apostle Matthew to be the author of this Gospel. He cites a number of reasons such as the text being in Greek, not Aramaic, the Gospel's heavy reliance on Mark, and the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account. [3] Francis Write Beare agrees, and goes on to say in his book The Gospel according to Matthew "there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience."[4]

[mwc]

Read all the resurrection accounts together including Acts 1. Take all the pieces of the puzzle and piece them together. It's not hard to do. Like any eyewitness accounts of an event some leave out details, others do not. Jesus was with the disciples forty days. These things happened with in that time period. I'm not going to construct a time line because no time line is given except the forty days.

Now I'm going to ask you to do something. Unlike your request to me this is something that I'm quite certain you have never done (and something that you haven't done multiple times over the course of your lifetime...if you don't understand what I just said it was to point out I've looked at this whole resurrection thing more than once or twice).

 

Okay. Are you ready to do what I ask of you? Seriously? What I'm about to ask isn't some evil athiest-y thing so don't worry. What I want you to do is simply do a little honest research into the accuracy of eyewitnesses and their testimony. A lot of research has been done in this area so I imagine you shouldn't have too difficult of a time finding information.

 

There have also been quite a few television shows done on this as well so maybe you can find something there as well. I know that Dateline and 20/20 have both done shows on this topic. I also recently saw a show about Walt Disney World of all things that had a segment by an Imagineer that spoke a little on the subject. He mentioned the revealing of the original World's Fair exhibit with the animitronic Lincoln. People were amazed when Lincoln stood up and walked right out into the audience and shook the people's hands. There's just one problem with that. The animatronic never did that. It stood up, gave a speech and sat back down. It never walked nor touched anyone since it was firmly bolted to the stage. How could crowds of people give such different eyewitness reports? I'll leave that for you to figure out.

 

Why couldn't one gospel mention a stone and another say that it was sealed with Guards standing around? THE STONE WAS ROLLED AWAY FROM THE ENTRANCE. Jesus wasn't there. That's the message. Why couldn't the women find the stone rolled away and then enter the tomb? Another gospel mentions angels? All of these events happened.

Because now you've just invented the Gospel of Amy. Good read but it never happened.

 

You see, we've already given you the answer. Matthew gives the same story as you from start to finish. (I'm paraphrasing quite a bit). The women come. The tomb is closed. The tomb is rolled away while they stand there. The tomb is empty. Etc. In another gospel. The women come. The tomb is already open. Etc. Get the point?

 

You could just say that the answer lies in the way the author heard the story or whatever but keep in mind that supposed two of the four authors were IN THE ROOM when the women arrived and ALL FOUR of the originators of these stories were supposedly in the room when the women were there so the basic elements would have been available to them AT THE SAME EXACT MOMENT IN TIME. This is the key factor that people seem to overlook. They didn't need to piece this together like some sleuth. They were all hiding in a room and the women who witnessed it came and told the story to them. After that moment things become more fluid but not by much. However, not knowing who was in the initial party going to the tomb, whether or not there were guards, the angels, the earthquake and all the details that happened BEFORE the women told the disciples ARE NOT up to the indipendant authors but are solely up to the report of the women and primarily the report of Mary from what is written.

 

So any excuses to say that various details are due to the perspective of the author (in cases such as this where there's really only one primary source for all the authors) are just that excuses.

 

What's the big deal? As you observed mwc, even a retarded chimp can understand this.

Ah...ah...ah...Amy :

Why is this so hard to believe?

Because I'm not a retarded chimp?

There is a world of difference between understanding and believing.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Hans said to Amy Marie, "sorry Amy, but you still don't understand." And then Hans said "most scholars agree that the names attributed to the Gospels aren't the real authors or the disciples of Jesus."

 

After some thinking, Hans decided to write something more to Amy, and he wrote "Isn't it strange when I write to you like this? Don't you wonder if this really makes sense to write like this? If you don't understand this difference, then you will never understand where the problems are."

 

Meanwhile in Brazil a squirrel ate a nut. And on the other side of the ocean, two birds were chirping and building a little nest.

 

Then Hans said to Amy Marie, "I know you really didn't read or think about what I wrote you before, because if you did, you would understand."

 

After all these wise words from the Prophet Hans, he transformed into a dove and flew away to the horizon, only to return at a later time to respond more to Amy Marie's posts.

 

(He who wrote this post was a true eyewitness to all the events above, but I won't tell you my name.)

[RHEMtron]

I was talking about Jesus' FIRST appearance to His disiples, He FIRST appeared to them in Jerusalem, not His FIRST appearance period.

You either cant handle the truth, or youre a liar. That is not what you said. Let's quote what you said EXACTLY.

I believe Jesus appeared to the women FIRST and then to Mary Magdalene.

then you said

Jesus' first appearance was to His disciples at Jerusalem

You first claimed that his first appearance was the the women, excluding Mary M. Then you said his first appearance was to his disciples. You didnt say his first appearance to the disciples.... you said it WAS his first appearance. You contradict yourself and Mark, who says Jesus first appeared to Mary. You also contradict Paul in 1 Cor 15:5 who claims that it was Cephas who saw Jesus first.

 

Yes all of these appearances happened at different times and in different places over a forty day period.

You still fail to show how it took place over 40 days when the context of Mark and Luke clearly show it took place in one day.

 

Sure there were some who doubted including Thomas.

Youre again missing the point, the point was:

So he appears to all of them in Galilee [Matt 28:16-17], 2 in the country and to 11 of them "as they sat at meat" [Mark 16:12,14], 2 at Emmaus and then to all of them in room in Jerusalem [Luke 24:31, 36], Then again in a room with all except Thomas and then to Thomas [John 20:19]. And to top it all off, after seeing him sooooOOooo many times, in some accounts, they still didnt believe it was him, or was amazed each time as if it were the first time they saw him. Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

address that point directly.

 

The gospel writers were honest about it. So what? I think this makes the story even more believable, that the doubt was mentioned. In the end they all believed.

Honest?!?!? They omit facts and events and you call them honest?!?!?

 

You can't construct a time line because none is given in the Gospel.

Yet youre still trying with the whole "it happen over a period of 40 days" thing. At the same time, youre not cause you know everything contradicts.

 

The evidence I do give from Acts (that Jesus was here for forty days) and John (That He appeared to Thomas eight days later) you just don't want to accept because it doesn't agree with your theory.

No... I have no theory. Everything I say to you is what it literally says in the Bible, and in context. Youre right. Just because it doesnt say "much days later" doesnt mean it could have been. It also doesnt mean it couldnt have been either. But keep in mind it also doesnt say the words "it happen all in one day" either. It doesnt mean it could have been, or that it couldnt have been.

 

You said that just because it says there was 1 angel, and it doesnt say there were 2 angels, it doesnt mean there could have been. So with that logic, just because it doesnt say "it all happened in one day", that doesnt mean it could have. Quit being a hypocrite and pulling double standards.

 

But, anyhow, i read what is actually written in the bible, and in it's entirety to get the full context. I dont pay attention to what's not there, but what is there. Acts is the one that does not agree with the Gospels. The Gospels are the ones that dont even agree with each other. Youre the one who does not want to accept WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE because it doesnt agree with youre theory.

 

Stop making claims that arent backed up by the bible. Once again ill point to

Proverbs 30:6

Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you be proved a liar.

 

The Gospel don't condratict each other. The compliment one another.

Show me how the 1st appearance i mentioned compliments each other.

[mwc]

Han just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean I don't read or think.

 

Yes, I would have said "my house" but this proves nothing to me. John writes his gospel the same way, in the third person until late in his gospel he says, "this is the same disciple who was an eyewitness to all these things and wrote them down." John 21:29

Tell you what Amy...Just go into the gospels and point out where the authors name themselves. Don't go into some website where other people give some wacky reason why the names for the gospels should be the names for the gospels (I've been there and done that). I just want to see the authors name themselves since I obviously missed it. If you can't then there's no reason we can't call Matthew James instead and Mark something else and so on, right? The names are arbitrary.

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

Hans said to Amy Marie, "sorry Amy, but you still don't understand." And then Hans said "most scholars agree that the names attributed to the Gospels aren't the real authors or the disciples of Jesus."

 

After some thinking, Hans decided to write something more to Amy, and he wrote "Isn't it strange when I write to you like this? Don't you wonder if this really makes sense to write like this? If you don't understand this difference, then you will never understand where the problems are."

 

Meanwhile in Brazil a squirrel ate a nut. And on the other side of the ocean, two birds were chirping and building a little nest.

 

Then Hans said to Amy Marie, "I know you really didn't read or think about what I wrote you before, because if you did, you would understand."

 

After all these wise words from the Prophet Hans, he transformed into a dove and flew away to the horizon, only to return at a later time to respond more to Amy Marie's posts.

 

(He who wrote this post was a true eyewitness to all the events above, but I won't tell you my name.)

Great... all preach this to the world and call it the Gospel of Cleopas

 

and amy... mwc's challenge is quite simple. look to the gospels to see where they identify themselves as the author.

[mwc]

This is no problem for Jesus resurrected body. There were no time limits. He could cross into different demensions, walk through closed doors, vanish. change forms.

Wow, so this is quite the deal!

 

So I guess we know what happened to the little kid in the OT that got resurrected (and the identical story in the NT that jesus raised...you know...they were "sleeping"). And I guess this would be Lazarus too and all those resurrected saints that Matthew mentioned that popped up when jesus died. Anyhow, if jesus gets magical powers then anyone who dies and is brought back to life (resurrected) should also get those same magical powers.

 

They all got magical resurrected interdimensional time/space morphing bodies! They could be my chair right now. Ahhhhh!

 

I'm just a bit confused. Resurrection basically just means coming back to life. Since when does it mean getting super magical powers? Just because the writers made jesus appear out of nowhere means they were crappy writers going for effect in their play not that he literally appeared out of nowhere since a reanimated body doesn't do that and that's all the word resurrected means. For all we know jesus came in the back window and surprised them all (hey, if xians can pull stuff out of their ass why not pull something realistic instead of he walked through a wall).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Hey, talking about magical answer to every possible question, I heard the answer to how gravity works.

 

You all know that Evolution is JUST a theory, just like Gravity.

 

So since Evolution is false and evil, then Theory of Gravity is also evil and completely wrong.

 

So here is the answer why an apple falls to the ground when you drop it:

 

There are billions of tiny angels all over the world, and each time you drop something, they see it and they gather around the thing and pull it fast down to the ground.

 

Hah! I bet you didn't know!

 

And what's cool is that the micro-angels do it according to Newtons formula of course, because their tiny wings can only accelerate the object so much before they get tire, and more micro-angels come to help so it moves faster.

[Mythra]

If I was Matthew, I would have written "he saw me sitting at the tax collector's booth. Follow Me he told me, and I got up and followed him."And I would write: "While Jesus was having dinner at MY house..."

 

And that's not all. You would have written the story in French. When you don't speak French.

 

It's highly unlikely that a galilean tax collector would be able to read and write fluent Greek. Which is the original language that Matthew was written in. (contradictory to what Eusebius said about what Papias said about what Matthew did)

 

It's also highly unlikely that an eyewitness to the life and times of Jesus would have to basically plagiarize 80% of the book of Mark. Why wouldn't Matthew just tell his own story. ESPECIALLY when Mark was only writing what he was told - he wasn't there. (all this according to the legend)

 

AND ANOTHER THING.

 

If the re-animated jesus showed himself to 500, why did that little tidbit fail to make it into the fab four?

[Ouroboros]

No, he Matthew didn't speak French or write in Greek. Don't you know Matthew wrote it in perfect 1611 AD English? Ooops sorry. It's colosseum. Please disregard my disprespect.

[Mythra]

No, he Matthew didn't speak French or write in Greek. Don't you know Matthew wrote it in perfect 1611 AD English? Ooops sorry. It's colosseum. Please disregard my disprespect.

 

That's one strike, dude. A couple more and I'm turning you in to a moderator.

 

Wait a minute. Someone already turned you into a moderator.

[SkepticOfBible]

Read all the resurrection accounts together including Acts 1. Take all the pieces of the puzzle and piece them together. It's not hard to do.

 

If it is so damn easy to piece them together, then how come we are getting 3 different narrative from 3 different christians?

 

Using your kind of rationalisation and employing subjective qualifiers, one can weave an explanation that reconciles just about any contradiction.

 

Even the large ears of a rabbit can be rationalized completely off of the bunny if one adds enough subjectivity and wishful thinking, leaving the rabbit with only the appearance of having large ears.