Dan Barkers "Easter Challenge"

[Abiyoyo]

Listen everyone,

 

Whats up with the Easter Challenge and the "denouncing of Christ" because of a few variations of text. Come on, any of the analytical thinkers here can easily determine the falsehoods of this article. I actually remeber someone posting something about this and I looked into it. So what, whats the big deal about the fact that there is a variance in text or "story". I do have a very black and white answer to this absurdity. Its called common sense. Now, before everyone starts ranting and raving and "declaring" that Im preaching, please think about the context of the Bible, the authors, the different spectrums of time that these documents were written. I have veiwed the concepts of this "preacher Dan" before on an antiChrist site. I do however have a few questions in regards to this Easter Challenge. To answer any questions, Yes I have taken this challenge and yes there is a variance in "events told".

 

What is the point of proving the Gospels inaccurate in events?

 

Heres some answers that Ive have heard in the past.

 

1) To show the cover up of the ministry of Jesus.

2) To show that the disciples tried fulfill the prophecy by what Jesus said about the ressurection.

3)By moving the body and writting that He ressurected.

 

Now, lets assume the story of Jesus in the Bible is historically accurate. People in the past have asked questions in regard to the religious leaders "altering" of the Bible. Basically, even if the Bible was being claimed as accurate, then the critics would debate that the Word was tampered in the post death of Jesus. The church revised the Bible and picked and chose Books to partake in the binding of the Bible, this fact is correct. The religious leaders did revise the Bible many times and it was kept in "secureness" of the leaders. The Wycliffe translation was most used in futher translations(KJV) and he was killed for his brief publications for it to "common" people.

 

My next point is that if the Bible was supposedly being "altered" and revised and Books were being deleted; then why(thinking common sense here) wouldnt the religious leaders have come together to make a common and verifiable "context" of the post death of Jesus. In counter defense of some claims againist Christianity, most veiws could be "logically" proven wrong by this question. Another point, If the religious leaders didnt alter text and did revise and chose the Books to be used in Godly judgement, then Why are the Gospels in such contradiction of themselves according to the events that took place after the death of Jesus. This leads to my topic in reality or "Challenge":

 

I believe this is a fair analytical challenge that everone can participate in without feeling that they are being preached to. After all, most either partake in these types of discussions or debate, according to the truths they have learned.

 

I present the I Am Challenge.

 

Here it is:

 

Jesus in the Gospels, claimed that He was before Abraham in one Gospel and He answered I am He in two others, and lastly claimed that before abraham I AM in the other Gospel.

These are based on the passages before being lead up to Pilate, My challenge consists of looking at this point of reference until the death of Jesus and give the variance of the text and the context.

 

Next Challenge: The Family A Challenge.

 

Family A:

Family A has had a dramatic event take place in their household.

Family A has 10 family memebers that live in the house.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

Memebers 2 3 5 9 were all present during the event until the end.

Members 6 8 10 came about in the middle of the events.

Memebers 1 4 7 came about a little latter in the last half of the events.

 

Also, lets say that members 6 4 9 fled directly after the event and went somewhere else.

Lets say that members 1 3 10 stayed and comforted the victim is this event.

Lets say that 2 10 5 7went some else very briefly and came back.

 

Now lets say that members 1 2 3 wrote a story about the events(1yr after)

Lets say that 4 5 6 7 wrote a story about the events(5 yrs later)

Lets say that 8 9 10 wrote a story about the events (20yrs later)

 

Lets say that some varity of these members before the writting of events in the future had contact and some have not. Lets say at the "time of the writtings", they had no contact "documented" from each other in there writtings.

 

Are their storys going to be considered "myth" events?

 

The text might be very different based upon the scene of eachs mind, but would the writtings "basic what happened" be correct.

 

Also, what if in the same sequence the members wrote a Biography based on the persons life and death, Would these be considered "untrue" to people that didnt know them at all and read the writtings.

 

The point is that there are many writting and testimonies about many people, but the main suggestion is that the stories developed are their testimonies.

 

Are these writtings of Family A going to adhere to each others in perfect accordance?

 

No, of course not. But that doesnt make the story untrue.

 

Dan Barkers Easter Challenge

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

[Caretaker]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[MrSpooky]

The point is to show that the idea of the Bible being literally true word-for-word is absolutely false. It is an objection against those evangelists that take one teeny little quote out of context in order to justify slavery, misogyny, or pass legislation against homosexuality.

 

From that point on, it's all Thomas Paine from here.

[MrSpooky]

Are their storys going to be considered "myth" events?

 

No, but it's going to be considered HEARSAY.

 

Don't you remember in high school when a rumor about you and who you were dating or something inane like that spread like wildfire which was blown out of proportion, the details muddled, and events interpreted and reinterpreted even by acquaintances? This crap happens and the original event is no longer clearly known to anyone.

 

The Easter Challenge is a starting point. It demonstrates that the Bible is, at best, hearsay, with muddled events here and there. When you look at the broader perspective and try to support Biblical events with genuine historical research, you don't find much at all.

[Mike D]

The Bible is supposed to be "God's Word", not man's word. If God can't get his facts to agree, what does that tell us about God?

[Mr. Neil]

The text might be very different based upon the scene of eachs mind, but would the writtings  "basic what happened" be correct.

You're forgetting one very simple detail. The Bible is the word of God, right? I expect more than a general story from God. The point of even having four gospels is to have four corroborating stories, but as you can plainly see, they don't corroborate at all. They contradict.

 

The texts can't decide of the women arrived before or after dawn. They can't agree on whether the stone was moved already or not. In one story the women tell no one, but another version tells a different account. You have no choice but to admit that some of these events are false, in which case what exactly do you have faith in?

 

Suggesting that there's a general truth to the stories and saying that it's "common sense" is irresponsible. How could you say such a thing? That's appalling! What kind of argument is that? You know, usually when there's a story in which multiple alleged witnesses are incapable of telling the same story, that's a clear sign that the story isn't true. Happens in law all the time.

 

 

Let's take your logic and try to apply it to another problem in the Bible. Let's start with the events following Jesus' baptism. Mark and John tell two completely different stories. Mark says that Jesus was immediately driven out into the wilderness, but John says that he attended a wedding and chose his deciples over the next couple of days.

 

Here look: gastrich.org/baptism.html

 

So tell me, YoYo. What does "common sense" tell you there? You have two different stories that cannot both be true at the same time. You obviously can't have faith in both, so which one do you have faith in?

 

 

And the death of Judas is even worse, because there is no "basic what happened". In this case, Matthew and Luke tell two completely different stories. In Matthew, Judas regrets his betrayal, gives the money back, and hangs himself. Afterward, the priests buy the "potter's field". But in Luke/Acts, Judas spends the money and then dies when he falls in the field. What's the general truth in that story? Aside from the fact that Judas dies, there isn't one! These are two completely different stories.

 

Here are more details about it: gastrich.org/judas.html

 

 

So which story do you have faith in? They simply can't both be true.

 

What a joke!

[Valgeir]

Don't forget the story of... agh, who was it... one of the kings, died in four different ways. I'll search around and see if I can find it.

 

Edit: Second from the top.

[- AUB -]

The problem Yoyo is you fail to grasp what this is about. Right now I'm ripping the gospels a new one, and it's a question of whether your faith has anything left to call it's own. My research isn’t over but I’d gladly give you a preview, maybe Dan’s tactics are limited but they point to a serious problem you xtians have, your bible is full of holes. Its not just the gospel’s contradictions, but the total lack of evidence for any of the events or mythological figures described, not to mention the proof of colossal plagiarism we can level at the hacks who perpetrated this hoax.

 

The OT has been debunked my archaeology, and although you (like all xtians) don’t care about facts, or truth, the gospels fare no better. Although we cannot disprove them using only archaeology as the events are too small to show up on the scale they don’t with the OT, the contemporary accounts of the gospel era are numerous and none tell the story you’d expect if there was even a word of truth to Mark and his follow ups. There is no account or proof Jesus did not exist, however as with the lack of proof for the exodus which destroys Moses as a real person, the lack of proof for the miracles or major events in the gospels also show that at least the Jesus of the gospels is an invention. You won’t get direct proof or Judean document saying “there was no Jesus” because of course of there wasn’t then there wont be any evidence of any kind. Same with the rest of the bible characters. You use reason, evidence and logic, and you infer and deduce the truth, there are however some smoking guns that although don’t dispove you Nazerene jesus do show the gospels are the work of uninspired hacks. I’d hate to base a world-view on their word.

 

All that leaves you with is Paul’s vague saviour, and that is just a pagan archetype, not historical reality. The gospels all do agree on the basics, the crucifixion, resurrection (except Mark) etc, but these are just story elements they all had to include as they where established bits of xtian folklore, if they where real events, (that happened at the time alleged) they’d have been reported sooner, Josephus managed to cover the entire Jewish rebellion in two translations within two years, but over 50 years pass before the gospels start to come out They work so as to not contradict Paul’s rants and the oral traditions, but use different ones and end up disagreeing with each other, that’s what happens with fiction based on fiction, all they agree on without errors are the basic religious tenants the faith needed to remain a personality cult based on fear and greed. Articles of faith is what you have, not historical events. These are not eye witness accounts, that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, these errors don’t who a corruption of a witness statement, but that none was taken. So go ahead, claim there was a Jesus, and he rose form the dead, but don’t claim you have any reliable proof, as the gospels aren’t it.

 

It not just that there are errors, yes some are small, some however are so huge as to cast doubt on whether the gospels where written by people who had even been to Judea let alone where there in the 1st century and witnessed these events, if the story of Jesus was made up and simply set in Judea, which looks like the most likely probability, then these errors don't pose a threat to inerrancy but to the very existance of jesus. As far as I'm concerned the gospel writers had a myth and a set of basic motifs found in Paul and rigged a "historical" account by combining pagan and messianic stories, contemporary accounts of the areas and people mentioned and then ripped each other off for the rest. If you can show me a section that cannot be found a non-xtian source for then your naive claim that these errors are innocent and don’t damage their credibility might be taken for seriously.

[Abiyoyo]

The Bible is supposed to be "God's Word", not man's word.  If God can't get his facts to agree, what does that tell us about God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It tells me that the whole basis of the Bible is faith based ever since Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and many more. If all the facts were evident would many believe, or would there be something else to debate toward. How would the "agreement" of the scripture change many peoples stance on the Bible?

 

 

.You're forgetting one very simple detail.  The Bible is the word of God, right?  I expect more than a general story from God.  The point of even having four gospels is to have four corroborating stories, but as you can plainly see, they don't corroborate at all.  They contradict

 

The Bible is the word of God through events and times and guidances according to the precepts of the time of events and time of writtings. To answer the question though, Yes this is the Word of God that is the "guideline" to a Christians life spiritually and morally, by faith of course.

 

The texts can't decide of the women arrived before or after dawn.  They can't agree on whether the stone was moved already or not.  In one story the women tell no one, but another version tells a different account.  You have no choice but to admit that some of these events are false, in which case what exactly do you have faith in?

 

Would anyone be able to truly provide the accurate story?If all the accounts were in coordance, would the next topic be in regards to the "revising and alterations of the Bible by religious leaders"? They do have one thing in common that is of most important to my faith. Jesus did rise from the dead on the third day. This is verifiable in all accounts.

 

Suggesting that there's a general truth to the stories and saying that it's "common sense" is irresponsible.  How could you say such a thing?  That's appalling!  What kind of argument is that?  You know, usually when there's a story in which multiple alleged witnesses are incapable of telling the same story, that's a clear sign that the story isn't true.  Happens in law all the time.

True in certain ways. Keep in mind that all the while after these events took place the formation of the Holy Spirit and Jesus's Great Commision to the disciples came aboutr and these writtings all took place at latter dates.That was the whole idea of the Family A Challenge.

 

 

 

Let's take your logic and try to apply it to another problem in the Bible.  Let's start with the events following Jesus' baptism.  Mark and John tell two completely different stories.  Mark says that Jesus was immediately driven out into the wilderness, but John says that he attended a wedding and chose his deciples over the next couple of days.

 

Again, this is of no relevance to the subject of validity of the more important "event" that took place. Jesus was baptised and in both accounts, some form of the clouds or voice came down proclaiming from Him to be the Son of God. My point is that for every one thing that could possibly be not in accordance, there are many that are.

 

Here look: gastrich.org/baptism.html

 

So tell me, YoYo.  What does "common sense" tell you there?  You have two different stories that cannot both be true at the same time.  You obviously can't have faith in both, so which one do you have faith in?

 

I have "common sense" to believe the rest of the events and the entire Gospel meaning, other than the literal details. The story is in accordance where as some verses of "specific " times or deatils may be various.

 

 

And the death of Judas is even worse, because there is no "basic what happened".  In this case, Matthew and Luke tell two completely different stories.  In Matthew, Judas regrets his betrayal, gives the money back, and hangs himself.  Afterward, the priests buy the "potter's field".  But in Luke/Acts, Judas spends the money and then dies when he falls in the field.  What's the general truth in that story?  Aside from the fact that Judas dies, there isn't one!  These are two completely different stories.

 

"Hey Judas is dead. Really, yea I heard he hung himself, no I heard he died in the field". This could be a possible reaction to the death of Judas in modern speaking. The bigger point is if someone knew Judas in a different way than another, Would their death statement not be different. Yes, this would be very possible. We do these type things every day. If one person says a negative response about someone the two both know, and one is closer or has been in confidment with this person the answer would be different.

Here are more details about it: gastrich.org/judas.html

So which story do you have faith in?  They simply can't both be true.

 

Well, MR Neil. I have faith in the Bibles journey from Adam and Noah to Abraham and Issac to Jacob and Joesph to Moses to Joshua to The road and dealings of the Children of Israel to David and Solomon to the leading of Jesus, the Christ.

 

What a joke!

To some maybe.

[Abiyoyo]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, this is the skeptic Bible. LOL.

[Guest bdp]

YoYo,

 

I really, truly feel sorry for you. I'll just keep my freedom, thanks.

 

bdp

[Abiyoyo]

It is an objection against those evangelists that take one teeny little quote out of context in order to justify slavery, misogyny, or pass legislation against homosexuality.

 

I agree to some extent in regards to the evagelistic context, but I also proclaim that some people go to church once a week and think they have the answers. The Bible I belief on tells us in many accounts to meditate on the teachings and events of this Book. It also tells me that if someon doesnt have a deep root in the word and a word comes to them and brings joy, it is easy for the "evil" one to come and snatch it away.

[- AUB -]

Yoyo, if all you have is a circular faith, why not just say so and stop taking on those who clearly need more than the fall back position once facts, logic and reason have proven not to support you? What do you hope to achieve if every time we pock holes in your fantasy, you keep proclaiming your faith in it, and ignoring everything we say? If you’re not going to listen with an open mind, or even a mind, then why should we listen to your unsupported claims? You say you have faith, we rebuke with facts and logic, you then say you have faith, this is vacuous and a waste of time.

[Abiyoyo]

Don't forget the story of... agh, who was it... one of the kings, died in four different ways. I'll search around and see if I can find it.

 

Edit: Second from the top.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Saul dies four different ways!

 

Saul dies by falling on a sword: 1 Samuel 31:4 ~ RSV: Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make sport of me." But his armor-bearer would not; for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it.

 

H-m-m...or was Saul killed by an Amalekite?:

 

2 Samuel 1:5-10 ~ RSV: 5 Then David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" 6 And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilbo'a; and there was Saul leaning upon his spear; and lo, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. 7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, 'Here I am.' 8 And he said to me, 'Who are you?' I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' 9 And he said to me, 'Stand beside me and slay me; for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.' 10 So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen; and I took the crown which was on his head and the armlet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.

 

But, no that's not it...wait! Saul was actually killed by the Phillistines!

 

2 Samuel 21:12 ~ RSV: David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Ja'besh-gil'ead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilbo'a;

 

Oops, none of those three are really true, it was actually biblegod himself that polished off Saul:

 

1Chronicles 10:13-14 ~ RSV: 13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, 14 and did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

 

Saul was a jealous king that was destined to be the choosen leader of Israel. The Children of Israel wanted to be like the other nations and wanted a king. Samuel the prophet, praying, recieved word from God, that he would annoint Saul over Israel and make him there king. God also warned them that a king over them would rule them and there households. Samuel pleaded with Israel to commend God, and only God as there king andd let Him rule there households. Nevertheless, they insisted on a king. Saul was appointed at an early age and feel into arrogance and power and became "souly" disturbed. Anyhow, Saul pursued David all his days and sought to kill David. David had much respect for Saul, and had opportunity to kill Saul, but didnt. This was a battle of the Philistines in which Saul did fall on his sword in lue of trying to kill himself. Saul did fall into the hands of the Lord, by his transgressions, and ultimately fell to the strong hand of the Lord. But, physically, the Amalekite pushed him into the sword and finished him off. As far as the claiming of death by the Philistines, this is in Chronicles. Chronicles is the divided book of deatiled references from prior books. This inclination that the Philistines killed him simply a "victory" type staement and they had the bones of Saul, even though he killed himself with help, nevertheless they had the bones, in which they said they killed Saul. This is a depict of a very unimportant and ridiculious accordance in the Bible. What does this prove? nothing.

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo, if all you have is a circular faith, why not just say so and stop taking on those who clearly need more than the fall back position once facts, logic and reason have proven not to support you? What do you hope to achieve if every time we pock holes in your fantasy, you keep proclaiming your faith in it, and ignoring everything we say? If you’re not going to listen with an open mind, or even a mind, then why should we listen to your unsupported claims? You say you have faith, we rebuke with facts and logic, you then say you have faith, this is vacuous and a waste of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Faith I do proclaim I have. The reason for the majority of my comments are in result of the "broad" variances of the Bible text given in example or for dispute. I am not proclaiming "faith" of belief that its right, at this point. I more lean toward the "common sense" of the events, what took place, and how the smallest details effect the validity of the content being discussed.

[Abiyoyo]

The problem Yoyo is you fail to grasp what this is about. Right now I'm ripping the gospels a new one, and it's a question of whether your faith has anything left to call it's own. My research isn’t over but I’d gladly give you a preview, maybe Dan’s tactics are limited but they point to a serious problem you xtians have, your bible is full of holes. Its not just the gospel’s contradictions, but the total lack of evidence for any of the events or mythological figures described, not to mention the proof of colossal plagiarism we can level at the hacks who perpetrated this hoax.

 

The OT has been debunked my archaeology, and although you (like all xtians) don’t care about facts, or truth, the gospels fare no better. Although we cannot disprove them using only archaeology as the events are too small to show up on the scale they don’t with the OT, the contemporary accounts of the gospel era are numerous and none tell the story you’d expect if there was even a word of truth to Mark and his follow ups. There is no account or proof Jesus did not exist, however as with the lack of proof for the exodus which destroys Moses as a real person, the lack of proof for the miracles or major events in the gospels also show that at least the Jesus of the gospels is an invention. You won’t get direct proof or Judean document saying “there was no Jesus” because of course of there wasn’t then there wont be any evidence of any kind. Same with the rest of the bible characters. You use reason, evidence and logic, and you infer and deduce the truth, there are however some smoking guns that although don’t dispove you Nazerene jesus do show the gospels are the work of uninspired hacks. I’d hate to base a world-view on their word.

 

All that leaves you with is Paul’s vague saviour, and that is just a pagan archetype, not historical reality. The gospels all do agree on the basics, the crucifixion, resurrection (except Mark) etc, but these are just story elements they all had to include as they where established bits of xtian folklore, if they where real events, (that happened at the time alleged) they’d have been reported sooner, Josephus managed to cover the entire Jewish rebellion in two translations within two years, but over 50 years pass before the gospels start to come out They work so as to not contradict Paul’s rants and the oral traditions, but use different ones and end up disagreeing with each other, that’s what happens with fiction based on fiction, all they agree on without errors are the basic religious tenants the faith needed to remain a personality cult based on fear and greed. Articles of faith is what you have, not historical events. These are not eye witness accounts, that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, these errors don’t who a corruption of a witness statement, but that none was taken. So go ahead, claim there was a Jesus, and he rose form the dead, but don’t claim you have any reliable proof, as the gospels aren’t it.

 

It not just that there are errors, yes some are small, some however are so huge as to cast doubt on whether the gospels where written by people who had even been to Judea let alone where there in the 1st century and witnessed these events, if the story of Jesus was made up and simply set in Judea, which looks like the most likely probability, then these errors don't pose a threat to inerrancy but to the very existance of jesus. As far as I'm concerned the gospel writers had a myth and a set of basic motifs found in Paul and rigged a "historical" account by combining pagan and messianic stories, contemporary accounts of the areas and people mentioned and then ripped each other off for the rest. If you can show me a section that cannot be found a non-xtian source for then your naive claim that these errors are innocent and don’t damage their credibility might be taken for seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I respect your writting of the Gospels and Im sure that it will be of good craftsmanship. I do although want to say that for every single paragraph that is in your writtings, there will be someone waiting to disprove the logic and try to discredit it. This in retrospect to the veiws that are being discredited on the other side. This is an ongoing war of whos right and whos wrong. In all honesty, we cant prove anything, other than variation, and the POV for me is that even if the scripture was in complete alliance with each other, there would be a different route of disproof. For example, I have heard many againist the proclaims of the Bible say that the religious leaders in early 300-400AD's to have "revised the Bible and picked the Books, stories, and passages for there satisfaction" in ultimate decievment of the true word. Either way it goes there will always be a debate. My purpose of this is to bring forth a different veiw(similar to finding the truth proclaimed often to me) of ones open minded, more common sense, out side the box thinking. If I strike out, then Oh well, I still enjoy the conversation and knowledge that I receive and administer to others, possibly.

[Mr. Neil]

Yoyo, could you please learn how to use the quote feature correctly. You've got some of my words mixed with your words, and I don't even know what the heck you're replying to. Please correct your post.

 

From what I could understand, you seem to be trying to find a general truth in conflicting stories and making excuses for men who apparently didn't get all of the details right. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that in some cases, the gospel writers are telling a completely different story. The two accounts for Judas are two completely different stories. No amount of hand-waving will change that fact.

 

You seem to only want to accept the facts that are established across all of the gospels rather than paying attention to the descrepencies between major details. Your resolve in the case of Judas is to say "Okay, Judas died" while ignoring the contradictions. You can't just count the hits and ignore the misses.

[Lokmer]

What is the point of proving the Gospels inaccurate in events?

 

Heres some answers that Ive have heard in the past.

 

1) To show the cover up of the ministry of Jesus.

2) To show that the disciples tried fulfill the prophecy by what Jesus said about the ressurection.

3)By moving the body and writting that He ressurected.

 

Not true at all - these are not the reasons. IF the Gospels were eyewitness accounts - or even based on eyewitness accounts - if they were even considered to have been history, they would agree at least in generalities, if not in particulars (leaving room for variances in perspective). But, of course, they don't. And, in fact, there's clear development and redaction of one upon another, with Matthew correcting Luke and Mark, with Luke telling two different stories.

 

But, none of that matters to the truth of Christianity IF the resurrection story is true and can be reasonably be believed.

 

So, what do we have? 4 Resurrection stories (Mark doesn't have one, Acts does) that do not agree EITHER in generals or specifics. They agree on NOT A SINGLE DETAIL - even the two stories written by the same author (Luke and Acts) do not agree on any substantive detail. So, it is obvious that they were NOT writing history.

 

But if the Gospels are not telling history, then Christianity falls apart. If there is no literal resurrection, there is no way that anything that Christianity is based on is in any way substantive. At BEST, we are dealing with myths that meant something to people. At worst, we are dealing with a fraud.

 

And this, of course, is the nub of the matter. If we throw out the resurrection by declaring it a "mystery" that the gospel writers were trying to come to grips with (as Marcus Borg does) and just deal with Jesus as a prophet or savior based on teh Gospel accounts, we still have a charater sketch of a man who lies and prophecies falsely. So, if we wish to hold on the the Jesus of faith, the Son of God and redeemer of the world, we must jettison the Gospel accounts and go solely on the testimony of Paul. But, of course, Paul tells us very little of substance about Jesus. So the entire exercise becomes vacuous and circular, believing the gospel accounts on the testimony of someone (Paul) who brags about having never met an incarnate Jesus, and who calls those who said they did "Liars" in his letters. Paul, without the gospel stories, is vacuum. And the Gospels do not support the doctrinal weight of Christianity.

 

As Paul said, all of Christianity rises and falls on the historical "fact" of the resurrection. But, nothing related to the resurrection holds up, even from the biblical accounts. Christianity is therefore false doctrine. Q.E.D.

 

---

 

Now, I truly ask you, Yoyo? Leaving aside Calvin's abominable theology and taking Abelard's instead (which has God reaching out to man in love and overture rather than in judgement), who wouldn't want to believe such a thing if it was true? A passionate, compassionate God who does everything in his awesome (but not infinite) power to come into relationship with people - what's not to like? What's not to fall over to get in line for? If it's true, it really IS amazing and restorative and all that wonderfulness.

 

But it's not true. There isn't a thing posited by Christianity that bears out as true! The only basis for it is the Bible, which is written by men who did not know their subject matter. It is a doctrine promilgated and perpetuated by self-confessed liars (such as Eusebius, Cyril), monsterous personalities (Augustine, Martyr, Tertullian) and murderers (Calvin, many many popes - including many names "Innocent," and many different sorts of political demagogues). When you see anything else in the world - a story, a philosophy, or a doctrine - what is the first thing you look at if not the charater of the movement espousing this "truth"? Should I take Joseph Smith seriously because he testified to having spoken to an angel, or am I justified in calling him a fraud based upon the fantasticness of his claim, his criminal record, and the destruction and evil left in his wake? How about Mohammed? His own writings attest to his pedophilia (raping a nine-year-old) and his political ambitions! Should I believe him? How much less should I believe the story of a man that is ONLY known through the pen of liars, politicians, and evil men? Even if the story is wonderful and good, why would God select a crowd made up almost exclusively of criminals to form the chain from His ultimate message to me in the present - not reformed criminals, mind you, but men who were PROUDLY criminal FOR THE SAKE of the "good" God whose message they purport to bear. Surely, if there is a God, he is not so incompetant.

 

Yoyo, many of us here left the faith reluctantly, and many of those spent many months or years trying to find a way back. But the truth is that there is no way. I, for one, have too much respect for the idea of God to believe that such a mess could be the doing of an infinite personal being. If God really were to give his life, or even give OF his life, to be in relationship with people, surely he would not be so breathtakingly incompetant as to do a thing like this.

 

As Robert Ingersol said: "I don't know that there is a God, but if there is, my words are a defense of him from the slander heaped upon him by the priests." (paraphrased from memory).

 

-Lokmer

[Abiyoyo]

Not true at all - these are not the reasons.  IF the Gospels were eyewitness accounts - or even based on eyewitness accounts - if they were even considered to have been history, they would agree at least in generalities, if not in particulars (leaving room for variances in perspective).  But, of course, they don't.  And, in fact, there's clear development and redaction of one upon another, with Matthew correcting Luke and Mark, with Luke telling two different stories. 

 

Generalities, Jesus was proclaimed to be the Son of God in His baptism in all 4 Gospels.He also claimed to be the Christ in all accounts to Pilate and even the Bold statement ofbefore Abraham, I am, when questioned. He revealed Himself in all the Gospels in some type of form. Again, to perceive that all these accounts would be in accordance to each other is absurd. Why didnt the "religious leaders" change the text in revision and setting of the Bible? It would be very common sense to assume that the religious leaders didint want to change the text of the accounts but wanted only the books found "Christlike". Most of the interaction of the revisions and deletions of Books of the New testament were followers of Christ, one being responsible for our calander systems base form today. The question is the answer, really, If intended to change the effect of the "confirming" and "dedication" of Christ, then the leaders would have protected its uniformness, or apply the documents that were worthy notation of Christ. This is not a distance cry, its actually logical. Better yet, maybe Mary was the only one who was there and told all the disciples, all at different times. Before you refute this comment, remember, we really dont know the whole truth. In that, my stance is that this particular debate in my opinion is more like when you tell a story to someone or correct someone and they ask why this, and why that, and finally we say; Its the moral of the whole story.

 

But, none of that matters to the truth of Christianity IF the resurrection story is true and can be reasonably be believed.

 

How did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit if Jesus didnt ressurect. This is presuming the basis that the Book of Acts is accurate. Did Jesus not say that He would not be able to send the Helper, the Spirit of Truth? Did this not happen in Acts?

 

So, what do we have?  4 Resurrection stories (Mark doesn't have one, Acts does) that do not agree EITHER in generals or specifics.  They agree on NOT A SINGLE DETAIL - even the two stories written by the same author (Luke and Acts) do not agree on any substantive detail.  So, it is obvious that they were NOT writing history.

 

Mark 16:6

6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.

(NKJ)

 

Luke/ Acts, explain.

 

But if the Gospels are not telling history, then Christianity falls apart.  If there is no literal resurrection, there is no way that anything that Christianity is based on is in any way substantive.  At BEST, we are dealing with myths that meant something to people.  At worst, we are dealing with a fraud.

 

And this, of course, is the nub of the matter.  If we throw out the resurrection by declaring it a "mystery" that the gospel writers were trying to come to grips with (as Marcus Borg does) and just deal with Jesus as a prophet or savior based on teh Gospel accounts, we still have a charater sketch of a man who lies and prophecies falsely.  So, if we wish to hold on the the Jesus of faith, the Son of God and redeemer of the world, we must jettison the Gospel accounts and go solely on the testimony of Paul.  But, of course, Paul tells us very little of substance about Jesus.  So the entire exercise becomes vacuous and circular, believing the gospel accounts on the testimony of someone (Paul) who brags about having never met an incarnate Jesus, and who calls those who said they did "Liars" in his letters.  Paul, without the gospel stories, is vacuum.  And the Gospels do not support the doctrinal weight of Christianity.

 

Thats about the same encouragement that Paul recieved as a new believer in the Book of Acts, funny how "doctrine of law" and "theology" still remain the eternal flaw of Gods people. Paul saw was divinely meet by Gods Light and still voice and changed his life forever. How can anyone disbute the life changing effect on someone? In essence, if Paul was a liar then the disciples were liars, then Jesus was the biggest liar and all the "detailed" prophets that gave prophecy in the OT of the coming of Christ were liars?Thats alot of lying. Most important however, is that all peoples that claim to filled with the Holy Spirit, or have been truly in His presence are liars too?Were getting deep here, thats alot of liars.

 

 

As Paul said, all of Christianity rises and falls on the historical "fact" of the resurrection.  But, nothing related to the resurrection holds up, even from the biblical accounts.  Christianity is therefore false doctrine.  Q.E.D.

 

Easter sunday, personally, I declared victory in Jesus over situations keeping me from Gods will in my life and His still voice in my life. To assume, yes assume just because that feeling hasnt bestowed upon you is absurd. Did Christ not say in the Gospels, How much more will the Father send the Spirit upon you, when asked?

 

 

---

 

Now, I truly ask you, Yoyo?  Leaving aside Calvin's abominable theology and taking Abelard's instead (which has God reaching out to man in love and overture rather than in judgement), who wouldn't want to believe such a thing if it was true?  A passionate, compassionate God who does everything in his awesome (but not infinite) power to come into relationship with people - what's not to like?  What's not to fall over to get in line for?  If it's true, it really IS amazing and restorative and all that wonderfulness.

 

What if is the key word there. What if evolution is proven incorrect analysis, what if we die old and living by what if. I live by truth in the scripture, and the true interaction of the Holy Sprirt in my life.

 

But it's not true.  There isn't a thing posited by Christianity that bears out as true!  The only basis for it is the Bible, which is written by men who did not know their subject matter.  It is a doctrine promilgated and perpetuated by self-confessed liars (such as Eusebius, Cyril), monsterous personalities (Augustine, Martyr, Tertullian) and murderers (Calvin, many many popes - including many names "Innocent," and many different sorts of political demagogues).  When you see anything else in the world - a story, a philosophy, or a doctrine - what is the first thing you look at if not the charater of the movement espousing this "truth"?  Should I take Joseph Smith seriously because he testified to having spoken to an angel, or am I justified in calling him a fraud based upon the fantasticness of his claim, his criminal record, and the destruction and evil left in his wake?  How about Mohammed?  His own writings attest to his pedophilia (raping a nine-year-old) and his political ambitions!  Should I believe him?  How much less should I believe the story of a man that is ONLY known through the pen of liars, politicians, and evil men?  Even if the story is wonderful and good, why would God select a crowd made up almost exclusively of criminals to form the chain from His ultimate message to me in the present - not reformed criminals, mind you, but men who were PROUDLY criminal FOR THE SAKE of the "good" God whose message they purport to bear.  Surely, if there is a God, he is not so incompetant

.

 

Did Jesus not say that there will be many that say, I am He, He is in the desert, Look he is over here?Did he not warn of the false doctrines and teachings and warn of the "scholars". How is someone apt to be openminded about a Jesus that they cant see today, when the "educated people" of the time of Christ saw the miracles in front of them and sought to persecute Him, and questioned His "miracles", and even said He had demons?Again the answers are already given, Jesus said Blessed are they that see me and believe, Blessed more are they that see me NOT and believe. The answer is faith in a controversy doctrine. Faith has played a "general" and "specific" role in the history of the Bible since Genesis. Bottom line.

 

Yoyo, many of us here left the faith reluctantly, and many of those spent many months or years trying to find a way back. But the truth is that there is no way.  I, for one, have too much respect for the idea of God to believe that such a mess could be the doing of an infinite personal being.  If God really were to give his life, or even give OF his life, to be in relationship with people, surely he would not be so breathtakingly incompetant as to do a thing like this.

 

I truly understand and I at the same time truly disagree. Brother, love is the true light of God, and His teachings and Book that He gave as a guide to His people is the truth. Faith in this is the means by which the Holy Spirit comes. When the Holy Spirit comes it portrays acts of David, Ellijah, Moses, and the close relationship that God from the beginning wanted to have with His creation, through His Son Jesus.

[MrSpooky]

Sweet god, FIX YOUR USE OF THE QUOTE FUNCTION.

[Lokmer]

Generalities, Jesus was proclaimed to be the Son of God in His baptism...etc.

 

They do not agree about whether Jesus taught publically or in secret, whether he did signs and wonders or declined to do so, whether he claimed to be God or merely dodged the question, whether he was a hypcrite and a liar or a fine, upstanding guy. They disagree on the length of his ministry, the place of his birth, the nature of his divinity (was he God from the start of all time, was he a part of God incarnated into a body at birth, or did God adopt him at his Baptism?). I could go on - and these are NOT trivial details, these are major matters that characterize him as a person, and they are irreconcilable (I know, I've tried!).

 

This is to say nothing of the Easter problems...

Were there women at the tomb? How many?

Were there post-resurrection appearances?

How many days did Christ remain on Earth?

Did he ascend into heaven or didn't he?

Did he do miracles after the resurrection or didn't he?

Was the resurrection physical, or spiritual, or something in between?

And on, and on, and on. Each account - Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John offers DIFFERNT answers to every single one of these questions (except for physica/spiritual body questions in Luke/Acts), and Luke and Acts were written by the same man!

 

As far as your question about "Why didnt the "religious leaders" change the text in revision and setting of the Bible?"

 

Well, the fact is that they did, something that church father Origen complained about at length in "Contra Celus" and some of his other works. Your modern Bible is the result of the averaging out of over 50,000 scribal errors, deliberate forgeries, mistranslations, and contradictiory traditions showing up through 1800 years of Christian forgery and mismanagement of the text. What you have represents the "best guess" of a group of scholars, and that guess is made (i.e. which variant to favor over another) on the basis of doctrinal prejudice as well as on more rational grounds of textual criticism.

 

-------

You said:

"It would be very common sense to assume that the religious leaders didint want to change the text of the accounts but wanted only the books found 'Christlike'. Most of the interaction of the revisions and deletions of Books of the New testament were followers of Christ, one being responsible for our calander systems base form today."

----------

 

Umm...the Gregorian Calendar didn't become widely used until the 10th century, and was invented by an obscure monk, who got his math wrong in the first place. How in the hell is this evidence for your position?

 

Indeed, the religious leaders were divided over changing the text. Augustine, Eusebius, and others were in favor of it (Augustine saying that "There are some things which are not true which it is preferable for the vulgar people to believe," and Eusebius stating boldly that he has done all he can to "amplify that which brings glory to the church, and supress all that does not." These men are self-confessed liars, and Augustine is the foundation of all Christian thought and doctrine that is practiced and believed in the West).

 

--------

You continue:

"The question is the answer, really, If intended to change the effect of the 'confirming' and 'dedication' of Christ, then the leaders would have protected its uniformness, or apply the documents that were worthy notation of Christ.

--------

 

In a vacuum, you might be correct. But you forget that the Bible was collected according to criteria dictated to Irenaeus, and was intended to bring doctrinally combative sections of the church together. There are four gospels not because there were four written by true witnesses, but because there are (I kid you not) "Four corners of the Earth and four winds which God has decreed." (Irenaeus).

 

The Bible was not under central control, but was rather under the control of many disperate groups, all of whom changed it unrecognizably to suit their own ends in much the same way that fan fiction writers change the story of the universe they're playing in to suit their own ends. In the West, that end was almost always Power. In the East, it was sometimes power, sometimes mysticism, and sometimes catholicization. The effect in either case was the same - an utterly adulterated text.

 

Better yet, maybe Mary was the only one who was there and told all the disciples, all at different times. Before you refute this comment, remember, we really dont know the whole truth. In that, my stance is that this particular debate in my opinion is more like when you tell a story to someone or correct someone and they ask why this, and why that, and finally we say; Its the moral of the whole story.

 

Baseless conjecture as legitimate source of debate? Your own Bible makes that particular piece of guesswork untenable. Some Gospels say that Mary told the disciples, some say that they found out for themselves, and one (Mark) says that she told NOBODY and mentions no resurrection appearances of Jesus at all!

 

Where is your head?

 

How did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit if Jesus didnt ressurect. This is presuming the basis that the Book of Acts is accurate. Did Jesus not say that He would not be able to send the Helper, the Spirit of Truth? Did this not happen in Acts?

 

You might just as well ask how Oddysseus kept the unfavorable winds tied up in a bag. It's a nonsensical question - you can't use Acts as evidence when it is the historical veracity of the book of Acts that is in question!

 

---

As far as "No Ressurection in Mark" - you posted Mark 16:6 where a young man says "He's not here"...

---

Mark ends at 16:8. There is no resurrection appearances, no angels, just a guy (who might be an angel) talking to a woman who OBEYS him and TELLS NO ONE that he has risen! Hence, there is no physical resurrection in Mark, at best there is a spiritual translation/exhaltation a'la Elijah and the Chariot of Fire. And how is Mark supposed to know this story if the women never told anyone?

 

-----

You said: "Luke/ Acts, explain."

-----

 

You want me to explain how Luke and Acts are dissimilar? Good heavens! Read the accounts for yourself. If nothing else, Luke has Jesus ascending on the day of the resurrection, Acts has him hanging around for 40 days and doing mucho cool shit in the interim.

 

Thats about the same encouragement that Paul recieved as a new believer in the Book of Acts, funny how "doctrine of law" and "theology" still remain the eternal flaw of Gods people.

 

I hate to break it to you, but without doctrine and historicity Christianity is just a new-age pile of fluff. Qualitatively NO different from any other mystery cult.

 

Paul saw was divinely meet by Gods Light and still voice and changed his life forever. How can anyone disbute the life changing effect on someone? In essence, if Paul was a liar then the disciples were liars, then Jesus was the biggest liar and all the "detailed" prophets that gave prophecy in the OT of the coming of Christ were liars?Thats alot of lying

---

Most important however, is that all peoples that claim to filled with the Holy Spirit, or have been truly in His presence are liars too?Were getting deep here, thats alot of liars.

 

Leaving aside the question of whether or not Priests are often liars and charlattans (they are), there's the matter of a false dichotomy. Was Paul lying? Not necessarily. The man might have had temporal-lobe epilepsy and started Christianity as the result of a seizure (not an uncommon occurrance, by the way-this sort of brain disorder is extremely common even today). Were the disciples liars? If they existed, Paul certainly taught that they were. Paul himself is caught out in more than a few instances of playing fast-and-loose with the truth in his letters (but, in deference to the time, that sort of doubletalk was expected of religious folks). Jesus a liar? The Gospel of John paints him as such. That's leaving aside the question of whether the character(s) we see in the gospels even existed, which I highly doubt for many reasons that I've layed out here.

 

And prophecies in the OT? Give me a break! Without fail, every prophet in the OT was a false prophet according to the criteria set forth in Deuteronomy. The prophecies generally applied to Jesus all either do not fit or were not written about him. The entire notion of fulfilled biblical prophecy is a fraud. There are only two types of successful prophecies in the Bible: Those based on reasonable extrapolations of known facts at the time (i.e. any politically savvy analyst could do it) and those that are verifiably written AFTER THE FACT (such as the entire second part of the book of Daniel).

 

----

As far as the individual believers who have been transformed, someone does not need to be a liar in order to be mistaken, deceived, or a fool. If you're going to use this standard I must ask: What of all the pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Taoists, Buddhists, and Shitos who have experienced this presence of God? Are they all lying? I doubt it. Are they all mistaken? That seems more likely. As I see it, there are only three possibilities: 1) they really are talking to God, but a God that is bigger (and perhaps less personal) than anyone's doctrine. 2) they are putting themselves into an altered state with intense meditation, mental dicipline, and ritual, 3) Satan is imitating God so well that no one can tell the difference, and God is letting people who are truly seeking him fall into Satan's hands for failing their theology exam.

 

Take your pick.

 

Easter sunday, personally, I declared victory in Jesus over situations keeping me from Gods will in my life and His still voice in my life.

 

Good for you. Keep on declaring. If it gives you a magic feather by which you are able to practice self-dicipline, then keep it up! But don't be confused about where it's coming from. Christians are often "declaring victory." Funny how they declare it a lot more than they actually accomplish it. Saying something is so is a powerful experience, but it don't actually fix the problem.

 

To assume, yes assume just because that feeling hasnt bestowed upon you is absurd. Did Christ not say in the Gospels, How much more will the Father send the Spirit upon you, when asked?

-------

What if evolution is proven incorrect analysis, what if we die old and living by what if. I live by truth in the scripture, and the true interaction of the Holy Sprirt in my life.

 

I HAVE had that feeling bestowed upon me. If it came from a God, then I'm very grateful. If it came from the way nature has constructed me, then I'm very grateful. But that experience does not imply a doctrinal position - I have the experience often, both before and after I left Christianity. Most people I know can say the same.

--------

Evolution does not need to be correct in order for Christianity to be wrong. Nor does inflationary cosmology need to be correct (and there are a good number of reasons to be skeptical of it at the moment). All that it takes for Christianity to be false is for Christianity to fail in its claims, to proclaim falsehood in its doctrine, and to give the lie to the teachings of the one they call God. Christianity does all three, with stunning regularity. The books upon which it is said to be based are fraught with problems in terms of direct contradictions, bad cosmology, and flat out lies. And the men who made that book the basis of their religion (the church fathers) were, without exception, politically minded, misogyinstic, fraudulent, murderous criminals bent on the destruction of knowledge and human society.

 

Did Jesus not say that there will be many that say, I am He, He is in the desert, Look he is over here?Did he not warn of the false doctrines and teachings and warn of the "scholars".

------

How is someone apt to be openminded about a Jesus that they cant see today, when the "educated people" of the time of Christ saw the miracles in front of them and sought to persecute Him, and questioned His "miracles", and even said He had demons?

 

Actually, it was Paul that warned of that. He should have listened to his own teaching.

-------

Umm...they didn't persecute him because of his miracles, and they didn't kill him for being demon posessed. The executed him as a death-worthy criminal under the law, which he was, thrice over: Once for causing violence in the temple, and secondly for proclaiming himself to be God, thrice for breaking the sabbath and encouraging others to do likewise (and we won't even get into the false prophecies for now). ALL of these things are death-penalty offenses in the law that was supposedly given to Moses from the mouth of God himself, and yet Jesus broke all of them so that he could become a human sacrifice (another abomination under the law of Moses which was supposedly given to him by God).

 

The Bible portrays a death-worthy criminal, not a sinless sacrifice.

 

Again the answers are already given, Jesus said Blessed are they that see me and believe, Blessed more are they that see me NOT and believe. The answer is faith in a controversy doctrine. Faith has played a "general" and "specific" role in the history of the Bible since Genesis. Bottom line.

----

I truly understand and I at the same time truly disagree. Brother, love is the true light of God, and His teachings and Book that He gave as a guide to His people is the truth. 

 

My heart cannot believe what my mind plainly sees as false. If God gave me this mind, then he knows that I am exercising it in integrity and will honor that. If he does not, well...so much for goodness.

------

Love is indeed one of the great measures of all things. Unfortunately, the God portrayed by Christianity doesn't measure up to that measure.

 

Faith in this is the means by which the Holy Spirit comes. When the Holy Spirit comes it portrays acts of David, Ellijah, Moses, and the close relationship that God from the beginning wanted to have with His creation, through His Son Jesus.

 

David, Elijah, and Moses as the fruits of the spirit? I thought the fruits of the spirit were love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

 

Not total loss of temper at every turn (Moses)

nor harsh murderous legalism (Moses)

Nor the erecting of idols for magical healing purposes (Moses)

Nor adultery (David)

Nor cursing people and raining fire on their heads (Elijah)

Nor disembowelling a great crowd of people on a bet (Elijah)

Nor terrorism, piracy, rape, and child murder (David)

Nor endorsement of incestuous rape (David)

Nor decreeing tortures for people (Moses, David)

 

and on, and on, and on...

 

Like ashes on the end of a cigarette, it all blows away with only the faintest puff.

-Lokmer

[Lokmer]

shit...why ain't the quote function working? I've obviously missed something obvious...would anyone be kind enough to clue me in and/or help me out? Thanks

-Lokmer

[Mr. Neil]

Too many quotes, Lokmer. I discovered this by splitting your post in half and previewing both halves. Neither half showed any errors. I guess you can only have so many quotes.

 

Try splitting your original post in half and editing your two previous posts to accomdate both halves of the original post.

[Loren]

Hi, guys.

Reach messed with the quote function long enough to figure out that there's a ten quote limit per post, unless Dave's changed it.

 

Loren

[Lokmer]

Thanks, Neil - and Loren!

 

Yoyo, hopefully that's intelligible, and not TOO long winded

-Lokmer