The Empty Tomb

Medina · 08-11-2006 8:08pm #1

In looking at the Gospels of Matthew, Mark , Luke and John, it is clear that each gospeller describes it differently.

I have quoted the gospels so you can see for yourself.

Now how do you know which one is right and which is wrong? Why are they all different? How do you know what to trust?

Matthew's Account
The Resurrection
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

The Guards' Report
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
The Great Commission
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mark's Account
The Resurrection
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Luke's Account
The Resurrection
1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8Then they remembered his words.
9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

On the Road to Emmaus
13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him.
17He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

19"What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

SIZE]

Johns Account
The Empty Tomb
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

BrianCalgary · 08-11-2006 9:27pm

Hey Medina, we would love to answer your questions, but you are not being very clear as to what they are.

What differencers are you particularly referring to?

Medina · 08-11-2006 10:08pm

Hi Brian.
It doesn't matter what the exact differences are.
You can see plainly that the accounts differ.
Would you be prepared to offer an explanation as to why that is?
Or which version you think is the Truth?

How can you trust the gospel even though the accounts of this major event are different?

Dades · 09-11-2006 9:54am

BrianCalgary wrote:

What differencers are you particularly referring to?

A brief scan shows me that one account has a violent earthquake and an angel sitting on a rock explaining that Jesus has risen. However the other three fail to mention either of these unusual events.

Given that a violent earthquake and an angel are the type of thing you would be inclined to mention under the circumstances had they been there - we have to assume that at least one account is false. The other options being; three of them are false, or all of them are false.

Asiaprod · 09-11-2006 10:51am

Medina wrote:

Would you be prepared to offer an explanation as to why that is? Or which version you think is the Truth?

Can't say which is the truth, nobody could, unless they witnessed it first hand. I must admit that John's version intrigues me. In it, I see the whole foundation of the upcoming Church laid out in detail. Perhaps I have a slightly different perspective, as I work in finance, but it does so remind me of an Executive Action Plan. This is not in anyway disrespectful, I am not questioning the authenticity of the accounts, rather I am impressed at the foresight.

Kamelot · 09-11-2006 11:10am

Asiaprod wrote:

Can't say which is the truth, nobody could, unless they witnessed it first hand. I must admit that John's version intrigues me. In it, I see the whole foundation of the upcoming Church laid out in detail. Perhaps I have a slightly different perspective, as I work in finance, but it does so remind me of an Executive Action Plan. This is not in anyway disrespectful, I am not questioning the authenticity of the accounts, rather I am impressed at the foresight.

Would you say there's a chance that the writer of that Gospel (it certainly wasn't John) prepared a good story and not necessarily the whole story is true? Like a good movie script maybe?

As history suggests, Jesus certainly wasn't the writer nor was it John so somebody third maybe was laying down the foundation for the Empire of Faith a.k.a. Church?

Medina · 09-11-2006 11:31am

Just look at the start of Luke's gospel

Luke 1
Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The author here tells us himself, that
a) He wasn't an eyewitness himself
b) He is obviously at least one generation down from those who were eyewitnesses
c)Many people had written downs accounts before this author
d) Everything that he has written is a result of 'careful investigation' not divine inspiration, so this gospel is most certainly not 'God's word'.

I don't understand how people can read this with their own eyes and then believe everything thats in it without a shadow of a doubt. Claiming there are no contradictions is just ludicrous, your eyes are reading but you are not seeing.

Asiaprod · 09-11-2006 11:49am

Kamelot wrote:

Would you say there's a chance that the writer of that Gospel (it certainly wasn't John) prepared a good story and not necessarily the whole story is true? Like a good movie script maybe?

There is always a chance. There is a chance that it is correct.

As history suggests, Jesus certainly wasn't the writer nor was it John so somebody third maybe was laying down the foundation for the Empire of Faith a.k.a. Church?

Like I said, who really knows. Could John have been dictating it to the writer.
It still comes down to a question of personal faith.

Schuhart · 09-11-2006 12:17pm

Medina wrote:

I don't understand how people can read this with their own eyes and then believe everything thats in it without a shadow of a doubt. Claiming there are no contradictions is just ludicrous, your eyes are reading but you are not seeing.

Well expressed insight. That's what atheism has been saying all along about all these alleged God books like the Bible and the Quran.

Wibbs · 09-11-2006 12:21pm

Medina wrote:

I don't understand how people can read this with their own eyes and then believe everything thats in it without a shadow of a doubt. Claiming there are no contradictions is just ludicrous, your eyes are reading but you are not seeing.

Well for a start it's not the earliest one. I think that title belongs to Mark?

In any event you could lay that claim at the feet of any religious text(s). Anyone can pick at the Bible, Gospel, Quran, Baghvadgita Gita, teachings of the Buddha etc and find "contradictions". The only text that would be consistent on the details at least would be one where it's the only copy extant. Some might even argue that more than one version of a text has more weight as it takes things from different viewpoints. Put it another way outside of faith any historical document that is the only one left has to be treated with some suspicion.

As Asiaprod says it's all down to personal faith. Whatever floats one's boat(and I'm not trying to be flippant).

Medina · 09-11-2006 2:41pm

But I don't understand how one can have faith in this when there are so many different conflicting/contrasting/contradicting/different versions of what happened?!?!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 09-11-2006 2:45pm

it's simple, they ignore the facts that don't mesh well together and focus intently on the ones that fit. Pick and choose your own personal truth, you got yourself a religion... or a political party, or anything in which a large number of people get together to decide on anything.

Medina · 09-11-2006 2:53pm

I used to believe this stuff myself, so I know the blind devotion that goes with it. But in part my faith was down to ignorance and laziness.

I read the bible cover to cover when I was 12 but was afraid to ask the Mammy the questions that I had. Never read it since except for now. And all the time in between I wasted not trying to find the truth, just believing it and taking for granted that it was the truth.

I just see that now that I have started reading it, I can't believe that there are adults out there who can believe it with all the problems of accuracy/corroboration etc that it contains.

And someone said it before on this forum, and I don't know where, but as Catholics you are not encouraged to read the Bible and this is probably why. This is why you get a few small passages every sunday. If if was the truth, then the church would be fighting for the truth, addressing the different accounts and versions and strengthening the faith of its people. Instead its shied away from because they don't know how to answer. I mean the priests must know the problems within it! They never talk about that!

Kamelot · 09-11-2006 3:33pm

Medina wrote:

I used to believe this stuff myself, so I know the blind devotion that goes with it. But in part my faith was down to ignorance and laziness.

I read the bible cover to cover when I was 12 but was afraid to ask the Mammy the questions that I had. Never read it since except for now. And all the time in between I wasted not trying to find the truth, just believing it and taking for granted that it was the truth.

I just see that now that I have started reading it, I can't believe that there are adults out there who can believe it with all the problems of accuracy/corroboration etc that it contains.

And someone said it before on this forum, and I don't know where, but as Catholics you are not encouraged to read the Bible and this is probably why. This is why you get a few small passages every sunday. If if was the truth, then the church would be fighting for the truth, addressing the different accounts and versions and strengthening the faith of its people. Instead its shied away from because they don't know how to answer. I mean the priests must know the problems within it! They never talk about that!

I read/heard somewhere (can't remember where exactly now) that the Church forbade "ordinary people" to either have or read the Bible for like 1000 years.

I wonder what were the reasons behind if not the obvious?? :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins · 09-11-2006 4:02pm

Just a few a comments on the OP.
Don't forget there were another 9 Gospels left out of the Bible altogher.
Thomas, Truth, Philp, Peter, Mary M, Eygytians, Hewbrews, James, Judas.
The reason we are told they were left out because the people who wrote them were not close enough to Jesus.
I'd say so what? Surely including them would have made a more objective book.
Also there were many people who claimed to be the Messiah, Jesus wasn't the only one.
What's interesting about Jesus (I'm a liberal atheist just in case you are wondering) is the Greeks took note of him. At the time, as a culture they were quite far ahead in philosophy.
I see the NT as a miixture of moral philosophy and spirtuality.
I take very little of it literally, but would respect many of the ideas in it as they are moral ethically ideas put simply that even a child could understand them. And I suppose if you are a spirtual person, you may be able to pick some more parts out as well.
IMHO you'd have to be a mega extremist to think it was 100% accurate or there is complete veracity in 4 out of 13 Gospels but not the other 9.

Schuhart · 09-11-2006 4:24pm

Medina wrote:

I just see that now that I have started reading it, I can't believe that there are adults out there who can believe it with all the problems of accuracy/corroboration etc that it contains.

Fine with me, so long as you’re not suggesting that a reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that the correct account was written down seven hundred years later in Arabia.

Personally, I’m comfortable with this statement.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Rev Hellfire · 09-11-2006 4:34pm

Schuhart wrote:

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further..

I can see the 1 billion or so Hindus all scratching their heads wondering what that means.

Tim Robbins · 09-11-2006 4:38pm

Schuhart wrote:

Fine with me, so long as you’re not suggesting that a reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that the correct account was written down seven hundred years later in Arabia.

Personally, I’m comfortable with this statement.

Richard Dawkins has a bit of the Michael Moore's. He loves sensationalism.
Many theists have a pyramid view of different Gods, e.g. Karen Armstrong.
It's usually only fundamentalists or extremists who believe in the exclusivity of their particular God. A lot of theists would just believe in God and see their religion or a particular theism e.g. Christianity or Islam as their cultural spin on God - that's all. The Catholic Chaplin in my School explained that to us when I was only 12 and that was a long time ago.
What Dawkins does is he argues against extremists - instead of the more progressive or liberal theists.
It's easy to pick holes in an extremists views point, they don't just have one leap of faith, but many gigantic leaps.

Rev Hellfire · 09-11-2006 4:56pm

The problem with Dawkins in my mind is that like a lot of fundamentalist atheists (and theists) he is locked into a medieval view of Christianity. His view of Christianity (and other religions) is that of a static non-evolving theology which is diametrically opposed to science. He’s all catchy soundbites and little substance, much like what you hear on the atheist forum.

The truth though is different on the whole with religion and theology evolving as our scientific knowledge increases. Science does not obsolete religious knowledge it refines it. At least that my view of things.

Medina · 09-11-2006 5:16pm

Schuhart wrote:

Fine with me, so long as you’re not suggesting that a reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that the correct account was written down seven hundred years later in Arabia.

I haven't suggested that at all.
My scrutiny of that religion will come whenever I am completely finished with Christianity.
And yes I will be applying the same theories and criteria to that religion as I have to Christianity.

Schuhart · 09-11-2006 5:30pm

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I can see the 1 billion or so Hindus all scratching their heads wondering what that means.

I have every confidence in polytheists being able to catch the essential message. As you know, an excessively literal interpretation of words rarely works in religious discussion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

A lot of theists would just believe in God and see their religion or a particular theism e.g. Christianity or Islam as their cultural spin on God - that's all.

Indeed, but that approach is nearly the last wave of the dinosaur. It’s simply a reflection of the hope that all the human capital invested in religion counts for something. And, while I’d be happy with the assessment that many theists can recognise they don’t have an exclusive franchise, I would not be confident about an assessment that most do.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

His view of Christianity (and other religions) is that of a static non-evolving theology which is diametrically opposed to science.

Which, to many practicing theists, is pretty much what it is. Both Christianity and Islam have loads of followers waving their respective books and saying what’s written therein means they can’t be descended from monkeys.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

catchy soundbites and little substance, much like what you hear on the atheist forum.

When was the last time you heard an atheist singing ‘kum ba ya’? The mote in thine own eye is clearly obscuring your vision of the natural home of catchy soundbites and little substance.

Medina wrote:

I will be applying the same theories and criteria to that religion as I have to Christianity.

And, in truth, I hope you find what you're looking for. Personally, I've never seen more to the Quran than an Arabic take on the Bible.

Dades · 09-11-2006 5:42pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

A lot of theists would just believe in God and see their religion or a particular theism e.g. Christianity or Islam as their cultural spin on God - that's all.

That sounds like good sense.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

He’s all catchy soundbites and little substance, much like what you hear on the atheist forum.

Sounds like fun.

Leaving aside for the moment that I'm not personally a fan of Dawkin's approach - have you even read one of his books?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The truth though is different on the whole with religion and theology evolving as our scientific knowledge increases. Science does not obsolete religious knowledge it refines it. At least that my view of things.

What exactly does religion "know"?

Tim Robbins · 09-11-2006 5:43pm

Medina wrote:

I haven't suggested that at all.
My scrutiny of that religion will come whenever I am completely finished with Christianity.
And yes I will be applying the same theories and criteria to that religion as I have to Christianity.

Fair play to you.

Schuhart you say
"Indeed, but that approach is nearly the last wave of the dinosaur",
I disagree, it's just spirtuality evolving.
Some people are just innately and intrinsically spirtual.
Check out Robert Pollack, a respected Scientist who explains this quite well.

Schuhart · 09-11-2006 8:46pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some people are just innately and intrinsically spirtual.
Check out Robert Pollack, a respected Scientist who explains this quite well.

I'll certainly give him a look. Bear in mind, I'm seeing the 'dinosaur' as being mainstream religion. I'm not doubting that people seek an individual meaning to their own existence.

It's a sense that I think was well expressed in an Emmylou Harris lyric "If there's no God, what is this longing for?" What I'd mainly say is its a long journey from that sense to saying the Pope is infaillable on matters of faith and doctrine or the Quran is the exact word of God. If those faiths try to cling to some relevance by saying 'just believe in us, its your culture and no worse that what the next crowd are doing', it seems to me to be a half admission of defeat. I'm not sure that people will actually find that so satisfying.

I think it also has to be noted that this approach is far from globally accepted. I think I'm right in saying this would be the essential outlook of the Bahai faith - that all religions have their root in the same God. They find themselves persecuted in some parts of the world for having such an inclusive outlook.

BrianCalgary · 09-11-2006 9:17pm

Medina wrote:

Hi Brian.
It doesn't matter what the exact differences are.
You can see plainly that the accounts differ.
Would you be prepared to offer an explanation as to why that is?
Or which version you think is the Truth?

How can you trust the gospel even though the accounts of this major event are different?

I would like to know YOUR questions, and not my perception of what your questions could be.

You have just thrown up a post with a whole wack of text and claimed that there are differences and wanting explanations.

Because I do not see any differences in the entire account. I see four different views of the same event.

BrianCalgary · 09-11-2006 9:25pm

The whole account of the women going to the tomb. All 4 gopels talk about it.

All four say the tomb is empty.

1 says there was an earthquake. The other 3 don't mention it.

3 say that a man or angel talked to the women. All 3 describe the man or men as glowing.

All 3 4 say the women went there.

C'mon not a single contradiction. Now do a little exercise. Go and read four different accounts of last Tuesdays Man Utd v Southend match and tell me all the differences and try using that as a basis for it all being a lie.

Why do you want to and insist on holding teh bible to a different standard that evry other document or event that has ever happened.

To be frank it is rather sickening.:mad:

Zombrex · 09-11-2006 9:45pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why do you want to and insist on holding teh bible to a different standard that evry other document or event that has ever happened.

To be frank it is rather sickening.:mad:

I thought the whole point is that the Bible is the literal infallible account of God?

If the Bible was held to the standard of any or every other historical document that has ever been written then the possibility that the Bible can be wrong, partially or completely, suddenly appears, quite strongly in fact since most historical documents that are taken seriously do not describe a man rising from the dead.

I think you yourself stated that if one part of the Bible can be wrong the whole thing can be wrong.

BTW there are more than a few "viewpoints" in the different accounts. The 4 versions have passages some of which must be wrong, since they clearly contradict each other. It cannot have happened all 4 different ways.

Johns account describes Mary Mag alone finding the tomb empty, running from the tomb, getting two disciples and then running back. The two leave Mary Mag alone in the tomb, and then Jesus appears to her.

This is completely different version from Lukes account, where the women go to the tomb but find it empty. Puzzled they look around for Jesus's body, but two men appear and tell them that Jesus has gone.

This in turn is completely different version from Matthews account, where the angel appears in front of the guards and the women and rolls back the stone in front of them and tells them Jesus has rising.

The only common thread is that Mary Mag was heading to the tomb (alone or with others) and there was a resurrection of Jesus. How that actually happened is all over the place.

If one was to assume that this must be describing some actual event then it is in the common details that one finds what might have happened. The guards were gone, the tomb was open and the body of Jesus was gone. That is come to all. What isn't common to all is the details about how the women learned about Jesus' resurrection. Those are the bits that are a bit all over the place, one has Mary seeing Jesus himself, another has an angel appearing to all the women, another has 2 men appearing to the women. If one had to assess which bits most likely did not actually happen it is these bits, since it is where the stories diverge the most and where the most inconsistencies appear. The major inconsistencies, not surprisingly from my point of view as a sceptic, focus around the most improbable or unbelievable aspects of the story.

This is nothing unique to the Bible, it is often the case that accounts of an event will increase in difference the more fantastical the stories get. I always remember when a major bike race came through Bray and past my school, we all went out to see the bikes. Stephen Roche (a famous Irish rider) passed us all, which was cool. We went running back to tell the teacher and are home work was to write about it. Needless to say we all got the basic details right until we started adding our own "flare" to the story. One guy wrote that Roche hi-fived him as he passed. Another wrote that Roche did a wheely as he went buy. Another even wrote that Roche stopped and walked over to us to ask us how we were. In reality Roche went by without even noticing we where there. The details of the race up to that point were all pretty uniformed, but it was easy for the teacher to see where we went from describing the event to describing our own fantasies, because it was when the tales got taller and taller. Needless to say no one made something up about the radio van parked beside us, or about what time we were let out to see the race.

BrianCalgary · 09-11-2006 10:06pm

Wicknight wrote:

I thought the whole point is that the Bible is the literal infallible account of God?

If the Bible was held to the standard of any or every other historical document that has ever been written then the possibility that the Bible can be wrong, partially or completely, suddenly appears, quite strongly in fact since most historical documents that are taken seriously do not describe a man rising from the dead.

I think you yourself stated that if one part of the Bible can be wrong the whole thing can be wrong.

BTW there are more than a few "viewpoints" in the different accounts. The 4 versions have passages some of which must be wrong, since they clearly contradict each other. It cannot have happened all 4 different ways. .

Let's look at them one at a time.

Wicknight wrote:

Johns account describes Mary Mag alone finding the tomb empty, running from the tomb, getting two disciples and then running back. The two leave Mary Mag alone in the tomb, and then Jesus appears to her. .

John does not say that Mary Mag was alone. It states "Mary went to the tomb". It does not say who was with her.

Last Tuesday Brian went to a soccer game. Last Tuesday Brian went with his son to a soccer game. There is no contradiction between either of these statements, one just has a little more information.

Wicknight wrote:

This is completely different version from Lukes account, where the women go to the tomb but find it empty. Puzzled they look around for Jesus's body, but two men appear and tell them that Jesus has gone. .

In John: Mary sees the stone removed and then runs to tell the men that the tomb was empty.

Luke: Women went to the tomb (Mary was one of them) they saw the tomb empty (As they did ain all the gospels), they then ran to tell the men (Mary was one them)

No contradiction. Luke just goes into greater detail.

Brian and his son went to a soccer game on Tuesday. Brian was coaching and the team lost 8-3.

Same as above, more deatil.

Wicknight wrote:

This in turn is completely different version from Matthews account, where the angel appears in front of the guards and the women and rolls back the stone in front of them and tells them Jesus has rising..

Mary and other Mary went to th etomb. (agrees with John and Luke, there were women who went to the tomb)

An angel rolls back the stone. Matthew does not say that the women witnessed the stone being rolled. they probably didn't. (John and Luke also agree that the stone had been removed, they just don't say how)

The angel tells them that Jesus has risen. (Because neither Luke nor John report the conversation does not mean they claim it didn't happen just that they didn't report it.

In the game on Tuesday Brian's son played the first half on defense and th esecond half in goal. (still no contradiction on the game, just more info)

Wicknight wrote:

The only common thread is that Mary Mag was heading to the tomb (alone or with others) and there was a resurrection of Jesus. How that actually happened is all over the place.

Right. We know the following from the four accounts.

Some women went to the tomb to prepare the body. They are Mary Mag, the other Mary, Salome, Joanna. They see the stone rolled back. There were at least two angels. They ran back to th emen to report that Jesus had risen.

None of the accounts are contradictory, they only tell the story with different emphasis.

Oh BTW did I say that our starting GK injured his hand and couldn't finish and the whole team played like crap.

Tim Robbins · 09-11-2006 10:42pm

Schuhart wrote:

I'll certainly give him a look. Bear in mind, I'm seeing the 'dinosaur' as being mainstream religion. I'm not doubting that people seek an individual meaning to their own existence.

It's a sense that I think was well expressed in an Emmylou Harris lyric "If there's no God, what is this longing for?" What I'd mainly say is its a long journey from that sense to saying the Pope is infaillable on matters of faith and doctrine or the Quran is the exact word of God. If those faiths try to cling to some relevance by saying 'just believe in us, its your culture and no worse that what the next crowd are doing', it seems to me to be a half admission of defeat. I'm not sure that people will actually find that so satisfying.

I think it also has to be noted that this approach is far from globally accepted. I think I'm right in saying this would be the essential outlook of the Bahai faith - that all religions have their root in the same God. They find themselves persecuted in some parts of the world for having such an inclusive outlook.

Here is a link on Pollack
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=771597158793240432&q=richard+pollack
Some interesting points you raised there.

Zombrex · 09-11-2006 11:51pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

John does not say that Mary Mag was alone. It states "Mary went to the tomb". It does not say who was with her.

From verse 1 to verse 18 it does not mention any other women being at or in the tomb. It states that Mary Mag went to the tomb, does not mention anyone with her or at the tomb when she arrived. It mentions that the disciples leave but Mary stays behind. Again, not a mention of anyone else being there with her. You would think that if someone else was there that fact would be mentioned.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In John: Mary sees the stone removed and then runs to tell the men that the tomb was empty.

Luke: Women went to the tomb (Mary was one of them) they saw the tomb empty (As they did ain all the gospels), they then ran to tell the men (Mary was one them)

No contradiction. Luke just goes into greater detail.

Its a different story.

In Luke the women, all of them, go to the tomb, see the stone removed, enter the tomb and meet 2 men in the tomb. The men tell them all what has happened, and then the women, all of them, go to get the men. The verse specifically states that they remember what the 2 men tell them and they state this to the disciples, who don't believe them

John has Mary finding the stone removed. She does not enter the tomb, and instead runs to get the men, stating that "they have taken my lord away", who then return with her to the tomb. The men enter the tomb. They leave for home leaving Mary to see Jesus

BrianCalgary wrote:

Brian and his son went to a soccer game on Tuesday. Brian was coaching and the team lost 8-3.

Same as above, more deatil.

A - Brain went to a concert but he returned home before it started to get his girlfriend to come join them. His girlfriend left early, but later Brian got to meet met Robbie Williams

B - A group of lads, including Brian, headed to a rock concert. They all got in fine and when they were in the concert they got to meet some famous people in the crowd while Robbie Williams was playing. They all left together.

Do those two accounts sound like they are describing the same event?

Technically they could be, in (B) Brian could have left his mates to go get his girlfriend and this was just not mentioned, just like his mates could just not be mentioned at all in (A). In (A) Brian could have met some famous people before the end of the night when he met eventually met Robbie Williams, and in (B) the fact that Brian met Robbie Williams could just be left out of the story completely.

But then that wouldn't make much sense now would it.

BrianCalgary wrote:

An angel rolls back the stone. Matthew does not say that the women witnessed the stone being rolled. they probably didn't.

They probably didn't? What are you basing that on? The Bible says straight after the angel moved the stone he spoke to the two Marys. Why would they not see it? There is no point between the angel appearing and them arriving. He is also sitting on the stone.

If I said "Brian was walking to the park. Suddenly an angel came down from heaven and appeared on top of the main fountain. He spoke to Brain", would you assume from that that Brian actually didn't see the angel come down from heaven? Do you not think I would have put in "When Brian reached the fountain.." if he still had a bit to go?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The angel tells them that Jesus has risen. (Because neither Luke nor John report the conversation does not mean they claim it didn't happen just that they didn't report it.

Why would they not report it?

Why would Mary Mag run away to Peter crying "They have taken my lord" if she, and the rest of the women actually knew he had be resurrected? Why if Jesus appeared to the women as they were running away to tell the disciples, does he appear again to Mary Mag after Peter and the beloved disciple have left the tomb.

Why when Jesus appears the second time to Mary Mag would she still say "They have taken my lord away" when Jesus and the Angel have both already told Mary Mag and the rest of the women that Jesus has been resurrected?

Why would Mark say the women told no one of what happened because they were afraid, but John has Mary telling Peter and the disciple, while also not knowing what happened to Jesus

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the game on Tuesday Brian's son played the first half on defense and th esecond half in goal. (still no contradiction on the game, just more info)

(A) Brian met Karl in the morning at the supermarket. He told his mother about this that night

(B) Brian met Karl at the bank in the afternoon. He told his mother about this that night

(C) Brian met Karl at the restaurant in the evening. He told his mother about this that night.

Again, technically all these don't contract each other, but one would be have to be pretty stretching it to assume from them that Brian actually met Karl 3 times in the day, and each account just happened to fail to mention the other 2 meetings.

BrianCalgary wrote:

None of the accounts are contradictory, they only tell the story with different emphasis.

They tell the stories differently leaving out major factors. This makes very little sense. Why does one say the women met Jesus on the way back and he said "Greetings", when Jesus appeared to Mary a few minutes ago? Did Jesus appear to Mary, hiding himself from the others, and then decide to appear again a few minutes later to them all as they were heading home?

Why does one say Peter went to the tomb after the women had come and told all the disciples that Jesus had rising, and the other say that Mary came and got Peter, saying "They have taken my lord" and then Peter went to the tomb and left, leaving Mary there, for her to see Jesus?

If all 4 accounts describe the same event this is what happened -

The women went to the tomb. Before they got there an angel moved the tomb stone and sat on the tomb stone. When they arrived the angel told them that Jesus had risen. Despite this they still enter the tomb, and when they are in the tomb they are puzzled as to how the tomb stone is removed (obviously they have now forgotten about the angel sitting on the tomb stone outside). When they enter the tomb they are also puzzled to find that Jesus is missing (again, forgotten all about the angel sitting outside) and are alarmed to see as they entered the tomb a man sitting down. He tells them that Jesus had rising. While they are in the tomb still wondering where Jesus body went (obviously an angel and a man in a robe aren't enough), two men "suddenly appear" beside them and tell them that Jesus had rising.

Clearly an angel, a sitting man and two glowing men were not enough for the women as Mary and the women run out of the tomb to get the disciples. As they are heading back Jesus appears in front of them and gives them greetings, but he appears first to Mary. I imagine the other women were told to turn around or something. He then appeared to all of them.

But despite having an angel, 3 men and Jesus himself explain to her what had happened, Mary still shouts out "They have taken my lord" to Peter when she sees him. At the same time the other women are explaining to the disciples that Jesus had rising, so what Mary's problem was I've no idea.

Peter decides to head back to the tomb, with Mary and the beloved disciple. They enter the tomb and see the body is gone. They run away again, leaving Mary outside the tomb. Jesus then appears to her again (remember Jesus appeared first to Mary, then the women, so this is the 3rd time Jesus appears to Mary), but Mary still says that she is upset because someone has taken her lord (clearly an angel, a man dressed in white, 2 glowing men and two appearances by Jesus himself isn't going to convince this girl), and despite having seen Jesus already she doesn't recognise him. When she does she runs off and tell the disciples that she has "seen the lord"

At which point they probably all shout in unison "We know!" and roll their eyes.

You might say that the 4 accounts do not contradict each other because each leaves bits of the other out. But it is once you combine them all together again in one narrative you see that such a proposition is nonsense. The story is gibberish if you assume that they all actually happened as described.

Rev Hellfire · 10-11-2006 12:02am

The Atheist wrote:

- have you even read one of his books?
What exactly does religion "know"?

Odd as it may seem when putting forward a view on an author I have.

As for the more relevant question "what does religion know", I believe the answer is it ‘knows’ very little, but rather is a belief. Religion offers a possible view without substantiating that view. You either have faith in it or you don’t. Much as I believe most atheists offer a view while lacking the education to substantiate that which they offer ie. various scientific views. Science says such and such therefore it must be true.

Religion may for example have stated that the sun rotates around the earth, but once science proved otherwise religion should accept that. And as science advances so to can the idea of a god and how/if it interacts with the physical world changes along with it. As long as religion is prepared to accept the evidence that science offers and evolve with it to provide a moral compass for society in general I see no problem.
It is this growth in religion that I see as the main problem with Dawkins. He has a fixed idea of religion which does not evolve with society as it advances, which to me makes his arguments seem forced, the root of evil is a classic example of that, it was practically no religion = happiness and bless for mankind.

I myself position myself in between the two. I certainly do not have the scientific training to even begin to be able to present the various scientific theories as fact (as it would seem do many atheists) but neither do I have a belief in an intervention-ist (is it even a word) god.
So I remain undecided, but with a belief that the scientific theories offered provide a more likely explanation.

ISAW · 10-11-2006 12:46am

Wicknight wrote:

The only common thread is that Mary Mag was heading to the tomb (alone or with others) and there was a resurrection of Jesus. How that actually happened is all over the place.

http://www.abiblestudy.com/part4.html

On the 1st day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. Mary (Jesus mother) arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen. The angel told the women that Jesus was not here, that he has risen, and to go tell the disciples. [Mar 16: 1-2; Joh 20:1]
The text of John 20, states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. Mark 16 states "they" came when the sun had risen. Unless these are two separate trips to the tomb, they can not both be correct unless it can be assumed Mary Magdalene came while it was still dark and Jesus' mother, the other Mary, arrived when the sun had risen. Makes sense to me.

Mary Magdalene looked into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. She turned around and saw a man standing there whom she did not recognize until He spoke to her, then she knew it was Jesus.

Jesus appeared a second time as the women were going to tell the disciples about Jesus' resurrection.

Peter and John returned to the tomb. Peter looked into the tomb and saw that Jesus was indeed gone. They returned to their homes and mourned Him as they did not yet understand what they had been told of the resurrection.

Two disciples (one named Cleopas) while walking to Emmaus (7 miles from Jerusalem) Jesus appeared to them, but they did not know Him. Jesus walked with them and told them of all the prophecy concerning Himself. Then, while Jesus sat and ate with them, He broke bread and blessed it, and their eyes were opened and they knew who He was. Then Jesus disappeared from their sight. These two returned to Jerusalem to the house where the disciples were and told them of the incident.

Dades · 10-11-2006 9:48am

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Odd as it may seem when putting forward a view on an author I have.

Glad to hear it. Though I am baffled as to how you could suggest his books are without substance. In fact I think he should stick to writing as he does not (for me) come off well in person.

Anyhow - back on topic - and to Wicknights exhaustive (but enjoyable) synopsis. (Loved the story about Steven Roche doing wheelys

)

ISAW - that analysis still leaves out lots of pertinent issues, such as angels sitting on rocks and rolling stones.

Zombrex · 10-11-2006 11:01am

ISAW wrote:

On the 1st day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. Mary (Jesus mother) arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen.

John 20:1 - Mary Mag went to the tomb before the sun had risen.

Mark 16:2 - Mary, Mary and Salome went to the tomb after the sunrise. They talked to each other on the way. It would be hard for Mary Mag to talk to Mary and Salome if she had left an hour ealier to arrive at the tomb before sunrise.

The angel talks to both Marys in Matthew. If Mary Mag arrived an hour before the other women what was she doing while the others were waiting for the sunrise to happen.

Also, why were any of them going to the tomb if none of them knew how to open the tomb stone?

ISAW wrote:

The angel told the women that Jesus was not here, that he has risen, and to go tell the disciples. [Mar 16: 1-2; Joh 20:1]

Mathew 28:2-7 - An angel removes the stone and then sits upon it. He tells the women Jesus has rising and to go tell the disciples.

Mark 16:5-7 - As the women enter the tomb they see a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb. They are alarmed at this (why be alarmed, didn't the angel sitting outside just tell you Jesus had rising?). He tells them that Jesus has rising and to go tell the disciples.

Luke 24:2-8 - The women enter the tomb and while in the tomb wonder about how the stone was removed. While they are in the tomb 2 men appear beside them and tell them that Jesus had rising and to go tell the disciples.

John 20:2 - Mary Mag comes to the tomb before sunrise and finds the stone removed. She then runs away to Peter and says that someone has stolen Jesus.

These 4 different accounts all contradict each other. The events in them could not have all happened as descibed. One or more of them are wrong.

ISAW wrote:

The text of John 20, states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. Mark 16 states "they" came when the sun had risen. Unless these are two separate trips to the tomb, they can not both be correct unless it can be assumed Mary Magdalene came while it was still dark and Jesus' mother, the other Mary, arrived when the sun had risen.

So how did Mary Magdalene talk to Mary and Salome on the way to the tomb about who would move the tomb stone?

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

ISAW wrote:

Mary Magdalene looked into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

In Matthew the angel appears to the women, plural. He is also sitting on the tomb stone when he does this. The only two women described going to the tomb are the two Marys, and the angel address them both.

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid"

The women (Mary and Mary) then leave the tomb together

So the women hurried away from the tomb

Mary Mag was with the other women when the angel spoke to them. So why when she met Peter later on did she state "They have taken my lord?" in John when in Luke it says that the women, including Mary, left the tomb and went to the disciples and explained to them that Jesus had rising but Peter did not believe and ran to the tomb.

It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

Peter then runs to the tomb. But in John Mary Mag meets Peter and another disciple on their own and explains someone has stolen the body of Jesus. Did Mary return to the tomb with Peter in John after explaining to the disciples in Luke, then not recongise the two men who appeared in the tomb and cry that they had stolen Jesus' body.

All this happens after the women have seen the angels, including Mary Mag, after they have gone to the desciples, and after Peter has run to the tomb. What, is Mary that dumb that she can tell the disciples that she can see an angel and be told Jesus had rising and forget this fact a few minutes later?

ISAW wrote:

She turned around and saw a man standing there whom she did not recognize until He spoke to her, then she knew it was Jesus.

According to John this happens after Peter has visited the tomb. Which according to Luke happens after the disciples have been told by the women that Jesus had rising (unless Peter ran to the tomb twice ignoring the crowd of women and angels there?), which according to Matthew happens after the women meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples.

So why did Mary not know Jesus had rising, and still believed he had been stolen, after an angel and Jesus himself had explained it to her?

ISAW wrote:

Jesus appeared a second time as the women were going to tell the disciples about Jesus' resurrection.

No, that is the first time he appears, because he appears a second time to Mary Mag after Peter has left the tomb. According to Luke this happens after the women, including Mary Mag, explain to the disciples that Jesus had rising. And according to Matthew they met Jesus on the way to find the disciples.

If you take the 4 accounts as all discribing actual events then Mary Mag meets Jesus the first time on the way to tell the disciples Jesus has rising, she then returns to the tomb with Peter and mets Jesus a second time after Peter has left.

John 20:18 - Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

But she has already seen the lord, she saw him in Matthew 28:9 on her way to tell the disciples that Jesus had rising, before Peter ran to the tomb.

Medina · 10-11-2006 11:35am

Well Wicknight, I never thought I'd see the day when we agreed on something

Brian, I really tried to see your point of view, and I did understand it, and maybe started to wonder if you were right after all, but Wicknight has totally and accurately (in my view) explained that they cannot all be right.

Wibbs · 10-11-2006 12:54pm

Yep and wicknight or others could equally point out inconsistencies in every other holy book's passages you care to mention. So why do people believe their particular angle above others?

As I said before it "fits" them better, whether due to an accident of birth or later realisation. This goes for every belief system. Now if you take this on board and feel that a God does exist, do you not think said God is well aware of these difficulties/contradictions and vagueness and gives believers of every hue some leeway? If not, with respect He seems a nasty, capricious piece of work and no mistake.

While debate on the minutiae of individual faith is interesting even to an outsider, such debate existing in a vacuum is hardly helpful. Does it bring any more truth to the table? Possibly or possibly not as people will continue to hold to the faith they strongly believe, regardless of any perceived evidence to the contrary. Check out the evolution thread here or the scientific miracle thread(s) in Islam. The former largely disbelieves science and the latter tries to squeeze the texts to agree with science.

I mean if one is to search for spirituality all one's life often to the exclusion of other things is that not a strange way to "serve" any God? Seems selfish to me.

Hey I'm an agnostic here so maybe I'm missing something. Answers on a postcard please...:D

mountainyman · 10-11-2006 2:55pm

Christianity does not have to be absolutely consistent to be essentially true.
These points you raise are irrelevant, so what if the accounts differ my understanding is that the new testament was transcribed between 70 and 130 AD, it is only natural that there would be differences.

Do you truly Medina have so little faith that these minor matters obscure for you the reality that Jesus Christ is your saviour, God made man who was tortured and died for you? (not much to ask of God I know but alot to ask of a provincial carpenter).

What is the point of this discussion we have the religion shoppers and the atheists slapping each other on the back and failing completely to understand the nature of Christianity.

MM

mountainyman · 10-11-2006 3:20pm

Wicknight wrote:

I thought the whole point is that the Bible is the literal infallible account of God?.

No that is not the whole point. What does literal mean, what does infallible mean?
Is the letter of St Paul to the Galatians the literal infallible word of God?

Wicknight wrote:

...Stephen Roche (a famous Irish rider) passed us all, which was cool. We went running back to tell the teacher and are home work was to write about it. Needless to say we all got the basic details right until we started adding our own "flare" to the story. One guy wrote that Roche hi-fived him as he passed. Another wrote that Roche did a wheely as he went buy. Another even wrote that Roche stopped and walked over to us to ask us how we were.

That happened to me with McGuigan; anyway Stephen Roche did go by, Just like Jesus Christ was crucified!
PS Wicknight check legal issues

MM

maitri · 10-11-2006 3:34pm

Medina, are you by any chance the Medina from islam.no?

I also read thise stories when I was a Christian and didn't dare to ask about the contradictions I found in them... Now I think it's important to be able to discuss such things openly and honestly.

Though, I'll add: Even though these stories (IMO) contradict eachother on several points (as several of you have pointed out) and that they don't seem to be written by the eyewitnesses themselves (as somebody also pointed out), but probably by people who have heard the story from somebody - this of course does not in itself prove Christianity to be wrong. It only means that there are contradictions in the Bible about what actually happened after the death of Jesus.

JimiTime · 10-11-2006 4:01pm

I was just pondering on this thread. It raises a question that I originally raised of my 'seperating the dogma from the truth' thread. My question was 'Is the bible 'The Word of God?'. I believe Jesus was Gods Son and we got saved through him. I have faith, i also use the bible as testimony. However, I never feel comfortable with the term 'the word of God'. That title was bestowed on Christ. Personally, I don't think the bible is 'The Word of God', but I do trust that the writers had holy spirit. I think its obvious also that the concept of, 'it was written by men, but authored by God' is also a bit mis-leading. I hope those of you who disagree with this point have a look at the points raised and realise that its obviously, not one author. The books of the bible have different personalities, which shows that while they were inspired, they put their own personailty into the writing. If this hinders one from trusting it, then your Faith is placed in the wrong things. At the end of the day, the message rings through. he point being made is that if one morsel says something different than another, it can't be authentic. I would agree, if it was actually 'The word of God'. I look upon it the same way Timothy described it, 'All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.' He stops short of saying it is Gods literal word.

Also as I was again reading this passage in Timothy I came accross another scripture he wrote which I think is apt for us in this Forum. It reads as follows:
'But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.'

Draw your own conclusions:D

maitri · 10-11-2006 4:18pm

JimiTime wrote:

Also as I was again reading this passage in Timothy I came accross another scripture he wrote which I think is apt for us in this Forum. It reads as follows:
'But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.'

Draw your own conclusions:D

My conclusions would be that you think that people who don't share your opinions on metaphysic theories (religion) are all these horrible things. Would this be the right conclusion?

Or do you, when you say "us in this forum", actually include yourself in these very sad, negative and unflattering definitions?

Zombrex · 10-11-2006 4:26pm

mountainyman wrote:

Christianity does not have to be absolutely consistent to be essentially true.

I would agree and say it doesn't (even though I'm an atheist, but that is another matter), and a lot of my Christian friends do not accept that the Bible is consistently true in all parts and describes everything as it actually happened, while still believing the over all message is true.

The issue is when people claim the Bible is actually absolutely consistently true and free from error, not just essentially true, and use this argument as a basis for saying that the faith is therefore "confirmed by the Bible".

mountainyman wrote:

These points you raise are irrelevant, so what if the accounts differ my understanding is that the new testament was transcribed between 70 and 130 AD, it is only natural that there would be differences.

It goes to the heart of the issue of if the Bible, above all other religous documents, was influenced directly by God Himself.

mountainyman wrote:

No that is not the whole point. What does literal mean, what does infallible mean?

Literal means as described and infallible means cannot be wrong.

The New Testement is often claimed to be the literal infallible word of God, which means things happened as described in it and it cannot be wrong.

If you think that is silly don't direct that to me, direct it to those who make that claim in the first place. I know Christians who do not take the Bible as being the literal infallible word of God, they take it as simply being a book written by fallible men that try to describe events that happened years before they were written. But I was informed, if that is the right word, by various posters on this forum that my Christian friends aren't proper Christians, because to be a proper Christian you must accept the New Testement is completely correct, and contains no errors. As someone said if any of it is wrong the whole thing could be wrong.

Dades · 10-11-2006 4:34pm

Surely if it can be argued that the bible is not the exact word of God and instead is the "take" on Gods word by humans - you have to wonder how much is true and how much is simply the product of the writers own opinion/bias?

JimiTime · 10-11-2006 6:36pm

maitri wrote:

My conclusions would be that you think that people who don't share your opinions on metaphysic theories (religion) are all these horrible things. Would this be the right conclusion?

Or do you, when you say "us in this forum", actually include yourself in these very sad, negative and unflattering definitions?

Oh Lighten up! It was banter, thus the big smiley face. Maybe some people are represented by what was written, I don't know, because i don't know the people on the forum, only what they write.

Schuhart · 10-11-2006 9:35pm

The Atheist wrote:

Surely if it can be argued that the bible is not the exact word of God and instead is the "take" on Gods word by humans - you have to wonder how much is true and how much is simply the product of the writers own opinion/bias?

The context seems to be the validity of the kind of things Muslims say about the Bible, where someone is being invited to convert from Christianity to Islam. Islam has a vested interest in undermining the Bible, because if Jesus was the Messiah carrying the final message then there’s no space for Mohammed, with his you-better-believe-it final message. Clearly, committed Christians could say much the same kind of thing about inconsistencies right back at them. Some already have. But I don’t think we’re interested in getting into the middle of an interfaith **** throwing competition.

Given the context, I think your point (being presumptious and putting words in your mouth) is really if we can recognise inconsistencies between and within them, this means Quran and Bible are not literal. Therefore, they are not dictated in every detail by God. So how much is just the product of human minds?

I’ll admit there’s something strange about essentially quoting someone saying ‘don’t quote me on anything, ever’. But something that Buddha guy said seems to fit the situation.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

That agrees with my reason and common sense.

Asiaprod · 12-11-2006 1:16am

Schuhart wrote:

I’ll admit there’s something strange about essentially quoting someone saying ‘don’t quote me on anything, ever’. But something that Buddha guy said seems to fit the situation.That agrees with my reason and common sense.

Prefer this quote myself

On life's journey faith is nourishment, virtuous deeds are a shelter, wisdom is the light by day and right mindfulness is the protection by night. If a man lives a pure life, nothing can destroy him.

Schuhart · 12-11-2006 12:52pm

Asiaprod wrote:

Prefer this quote myself

On life's journey faith is nourishment, virtuous deeds are a shelter, wisdom is the light by day and right mindfulness is the protection by night. If a man lives a pure life, nothing can destroy him.

It's a good quote. I'm subjecting it to the reason and common sense test and I think most of it will survive.

I'm not sure about the 'faith is nourishment' bit. Faith in the wrong thing could be a barrier, which I suppose to an extent is what this thread is about.

The Empty Tomb

Comments