Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

Penn wrote: »

I ask because, the Bible gives conflicting reports:

No, we've been through this before and it doesn't. The different Gospels each give different details, but none of those contradict each other.

Think of it is this way. I was once involved in a very eventful flight across in Africa (no need to go into the details here - it might put people off flying for ever). Now, depending on who I'm telling that story to, I will include or omit certain details.

If I'm sharing that story during a sermon I might just say say, "I was on a plane when all the electrics and engines just died" (no mention of who else was travelling with me).

If I'm sharing the story with people who know my assistant pastor who was with me, then I obviously mention his presence andd stress his role and reactions.

At other times, depending on the context, I might memtion a Nigerian pastor and his wife who were travelling with us. The wife's antics on the plane, often coming out with quite contradictory statements as to what she thought was happening, are always good for a laugh.

Each time I tell a story that is totally true - but the details vary according to the context and my audience. Certainly none of the different versions of my story contradict each other.

Now, we know that the Gospels were written for different purposes and to different audiences. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they should each concentrate on different details. If Mary Magdalene was well known to the Johannine community, for example, then it is entirely understandable that John dwells almost exclusively on her role and the lesson he is trying to teach through that.

Now, let's address your specific points.

How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?:

Jesus is portrayed as being dead and in the tomb for a given length time, but how long?

Mark 10:34 - Jesus says he will “rise again” after “three days.”
Matthew 12:40 - Jesus says he will be in the earth “three days and three nights...”

No resurrection narrative describes Jesus as being in a tomb for three full days, or for three days and three nights.

Some Christians believe that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday or a Thursday, but I personally think that it was on a Friday (not that it matters much to me either way). The "three days and three nights" is an idiom consistent with the Hebrew method of calculating time.

It might help to think of it as being like a hotel that charges you for an extra night's stay if you remain after noon. If you check into a Hilton hotel at 11pm night, then sleep in and don't vacate the room until 2pm the next afternoon, Hilton will bill you as staying for two days - even though you actually were only in the room for 13 hours.

Guarding the Tomb:

Would the Romans have guarded Jesus’ tomb? The gospels disagree on what happened.

Matthew 27:62-66 - A guard is stationed outside the tomb the day after Jesus’ burial
Mark, Luke, John - No guard is mentioned. In Mark and Luke, the women who approach the tomb do not appear to expect to see any guards

Matthew doesn't say that Romans guarded the tomb. He says that Pilate gave permission for the Jews to set guards.

The other Gospels don't contradict Matthew's statement.

Jesus is Anointed Before Burial:

It was tradition to anoint a person’s body after they died. Who anointed Jesus and when?

Mark 16:1-3, Luke 23:55-56 - A group of women who were at Jesus’ burial come back later to anoint his body
Matthew - Joseph wraps the body and the women come the next morning, but no mention is made of anointing Jesus
John 19:39-40 - Joseph of Arimathea anoints Jesus’ body before burial

Joseph anointed Jesus' body, but this was evidently done in a hurry as they wanted to get him into the tomb before nightfall (when it became the a Sabbath). The women may have been unaware of what Joseph had done - or they felt he hadn't done the job properly. (Sometimes I hoover a carpet and then my wife comes along and hoovers the same carpet again)

Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb?:

The women visiting Jesus’ tomb is central to the resurrection story, but who visited?

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple

None of those contradict each other, do they? Was I on that plane in Africa on my own, with a colleague, with three others, or with a hundred other passengers? - All of them are true.

When Did the Women Visit the Tomb?:

Whoever visited and however many there were, it’s also not clear when they arrived.

Mark 16:2 - They arrive after sunrise
Matthew 28:1 - They arrive at about dawn
Luke 24:1 - It is early dawn when they arrive
John 20:1 - It is dark when they arrive

John says it was before dawn when they went to the tomb - not that they arrived before dawn. Think about it. A group of women arrange to meet up, and then make their way by foot to another location. It would hardly be surprising if they went on their way before dawn and arrived after dawn. Happens to me every morning when I walk my dog.

What Was the Tomb Like?:

It’s not clear what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb.

Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later

Not true. Matthew does not say that the stone was still in place when the women arrived. Nor does he say it was rolled away later. Read it again.

Who Greets the Women?:

The women aren’t alone for long, but it’s not clear who greets them.

Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there
Matthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate’s guards are also there
Luke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outside
John 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside

Think about it. A bunch of women, arriving to find angels and a missing body. Which is more likely:

a) The women all stand together in a group, move and talk in unison, and otherwise stand still and remain silent like characters in a play?

b) The women are running about, talking to each other and to the angels, talking over the top of each other, running in and out of the tomb and trying to understand what has happened?

Put the Four Gospel accounts together and you get a sense of the confusion and chaos that would be authentic. But none of them contradict each other.

What Do the Women Do?:

Whatever happened, it must have been pretty amazing. The gospels are inconsistent in how the women react, though.

Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word
Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples
Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.”
John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home

The women go to tell the disciples (the eleven and the rest). On the way they refrain from telling anyone else what has happened. The disciples don't believe them, but two of the them run to the tomb. Mary follows them and remains crying there after they've gone.

Again, no contradiction.


So, Penn, could you please point out anything in these four accounts that is a contradiction - ie anything that makes it logically impossible for any of the other events recorded to have happened?

Penn

Mark 16

5 As 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.

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'

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

Matthew 28

2 There 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.

3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

7 Then 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.

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Luke 24

2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

5 In 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?

6 He 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.'

John 20

1 Early 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.
2 So 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!

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.

4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.

6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

8 Finally 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.)

10 Then the disciples went back to their homes,

11 but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb

12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They 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.

14 At this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realise 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.

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

17 Jesus 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.'

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.

By John's account, nobody saw anything in the tomb at first, and it was checked several times. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene only as it says the disciples left, and no other women are mentioned by John.

According to Luke, the women (however many) saw two angels (not Jesus) and bowed down to the ground.

According to Matthew, one angel, sitting on the stone outside the tomb (which means it would be pretty clear if there was only one angel or two).

And according to Mark, one man/angel in the tomb.

PDN wrote: »

Think about it. A bunch of women, arriving to find angels and a missing body. Which is more likely:

a) The women all stand together in a group, move and talk in unison, and otherwise stand still and remain silent like characters in a play?

b) The women are running about, talking to each other and to the angels, talking over the top of each other, running in and out of the tomb and trying to understand what has happened?

Put the Four Gospel accounts together and you get a sense of the confusion and chaos that would be authentic. But none of them contradict each other.

Which is more likely? A. And I honestly mean that (well, not to the extent that you put it. I don't think they "moved in unison" or "stood still"). Firstly, in each account they were given a message to pass on, which means at some point at least, they all were quiet and listening. Secondly, in at least Luke's account, they bowed down to the ground, therefore, not running around in and out of the tomb (Mark's account notes that they were trembling and bewildered, but isn't clear if they were running around and not paying attention to how many angels were in the tomb). Thirdly... if an angel appeared before me, I'd pay pretty close attention to what was going on.

In your defense of my point, you made a lot of assumptions. You also noted:

PDN wrote: »

If I'm sharing the story with people who know my assistant pastor who was with me, then I obviously mention his presence andd stress his role and reactions.

At other times, depending on the context, I might memtion a Nigerian pastor and his wife who were travelling with us. The wife's antics on the plane, often coming out with quite contradictory statements as to what she thought was happening, are always good for a laugh.

Each time I tell a story that is totally true - but the details vary according to the context and my audience. Certainly none of the different versions of my story contradict each other.

Now, we know that the Gospels were written for different purposes and to different audiences. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they should each concentrate on different details. If Mary Magdalene was well known to the Johannine community, for example, then it is entirely understandable that John dwells almost exclusively on her role and the lesson he is trying to teach through that.

So, the gospel writers changed what they wrote to suit their audiences? Well how can we take any story in the Bible as truth then? If I was writing a Gospel about the life and events surrounding the death of who I believed to be the actual Son of God, I'd make it as pretty damn accurate as I possibly could. No pandering to anyone's audience, or changing things to highlight "the lesson he is trying to teach through that". Why would anyone change anything about the story?

Fine, four people gave different accounts of the same story. But the events noted by each contradict each other.

So, who appeared in the tomb? Jesus, one angel or two angels?

PDN

Penn wrote: »

By John's account, nobody saw anything in the tomb at first, and it was checked several times. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene only as it says the disciples left, and no other women are mentioned by John.

Now, now, you are comparing two separate incidents here.

The other evangelists describe what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb the first time.

John describes what Peter and the other disciple saw after the women had left the tomb and reported what had happened.

According to Luke, the women (however many) saw two angels (not Jesus) and bowed down to the ground.

According to Matthew, one angel, sitting on the stone outside the tomb (which means it would be pretty clear if there was only one angel or two).

And according to Mark, one man/angel in the tomb.

Again, there is no contradiction. If it is true that were two angels, then it logically follows that it is also true that there was one angel. No writer asserts that there was only one angel.

The most natural thing would be that women were going into the tomb, coming back out of the tomb, looking at the stone and trying to work out who moved it etc. It hardly seems unreasonable that one angel was addressing women outside the tomb while another angel followed others into the tomb. Therefore, depending on which women the Gospel-writers spoke to, the emphasis could easily be on one angel, on two angels, and those angels may have been inside or outside, or sitting or standing.

Of course if all four Gospels presented exactly the same word-for-word accounts, then that would cause us to suspect that they might be following a carefully invented story.

Which is more likely? A. And I honestly mean that (well, not to the extent that you put it. I don't think they "moved in unison" or "stood still"). Firstly, in each account they were given a message to pass on, which means at some point at least, they all were quiet and listening. Secondly, in at least Luke's account, they bowed down to the ground, therefore, not running around in and out of the tomb (Mark's account notes that they were trembling and bewildered, but isn't clear if they were running around and not paying attention to how many angels were in the tomb). Thirdly... if an angel appeared before me, I'd pay pretty close attention to what was going on.

We're going to disagree with what we find more likely then. My experience with groups of women at emotional moments (my wife has a gaggle of female relatives and I've seen them at emotional times such as a sudden death) leads me to think my scenario is more likely.

However, the point is this. While you might think one scenario is more likely than another, can you honestly say that my scenario is logically impossible? That is what you need to be able to do before you can assert that a contradiction exists.

You can't go claiming contradictions and conflicts in the biblical accounts, and then when pressed to point to a contradiction say instead, "Well, there aren't any contradictions or conflicts as such, but I think things would probably have happened differently." I'm sorry, but if we were all to be guided by what we think should have been the most likely thing to have happened then we would end up rejecting 90% of history.

So, the gospel writers changed what they wrote to suit their audiences? Well how can we take any story in the Bible as truth then? If I was writing a Gospel about the life and events surrounding the death of who I believed to be the actual Son of God, I'd make it as pretty damn accurate as I possibly could. No pandering to anyone's audience, or changing things to highlight "the lesson he is trying to teach through that". Why would anyone change anything about the story?

Now, you're twisting my words (unintentionally, I am sure). I didn't say that they changed what they wrote. I said they selected their material to suit their purpose and their audience - something most writers and historians in history have done.

This is very basic stuff for anyone with even a passing interest in biblical studies, but let's go there anyway.

For example, Matthew wrote his Gospel for Jews, so he chooses material that will demonstrate how Jeus was the prophesied Messiah.

Mark wrote his Gospel for Romans. The Romans were like Americans in that they had short attention spans and favoured explosions and chariot chases in their stories rather than thoughtful plots. So Mark contains much fewer sppeches and presents his material in a punchy direct style.

Luke was writing for a Gentile guy named Theophilus, so he stresses the words and actions of Jesus that show concern and compassion for non-Jews. He was also a physician and gives more details about sick people that got healed.

John's Gospel is more philosophical, so it concentrates on some of Jesus' deep theological statements. Scholars also believe John wrote for a community who lived a bit of a separatist lifestyle - so he would obviously stress the roles on individuals who were well-known to the members of that community.

If I was writing a Gospel about the life and events surrounding the death of who I believed to be the actual Son of God, I'd make it as pretty damn accurate as I possibly could. No pandering to anyone's audience, or changing things to highlight "the lesson he is trying to teach through that". Why would anyone change anything about the story?

No you wouldn't. Imagine you were living in an age before the printing press. You had to produce a document that woould be concise enough for copies to made by hand. Therefore you would select the material most relevant to your purpose. In other words yopu would do what every writer in the world does (including myself) you would edit your material.

You wouldn't include details of what Jesus had for breakfast. You wouldn't include details that might have been of significance to, or stuck in the mind of, a particular eye-witness but which would be irrelevant to your intended readership. If you were writing for children you would arrange your material to suit them. If you knew you were writing for a big Roman politician who might use your account to justify persecution of Christians then you would be more careful about what you included or didn't include.

That's how writing, history, or indeed any kind of communication works. None of the Gospel writers were pretending to write "A Definitive History of Jesus Christ Including Every Known Detail of everything He Ever Said and Did".

Fine, four people gave different accounts of the same story. But the events noted by each contradict each other.

So you keep saying, but you haven't actually pointed to any one contradiction yet. I wonder why that is?

So, who appeared in the tomb? Jesus, one angel or two angels?

Two angels appeared at the tomb. Nobody records that there was only one angel. Jesus appeared to Mary outside the tomb.

Penn

Sorry, I thought I replied to this but must have closed down before I had a chance to submit. So I'll be brief:

PDN wrote: »

Two angels appeared at the tomb. Nobody records that there was only one angel. Jesus appeared to Mary outside the tomb.

Matthew says there was only one angel. Does he explicitly say "only one angel"? No. But he does say "an angel", "the angel", "The guards were afraid of him". So yes, Matthew records that there was only one angel.

As for John's version where Jesus appears, yes, he appears to Mary outside the tomb. However, this is after Mary went to the tomb, saw it was open, went to get Simon Peter and 'the other disciple', brought them up, they left, and then Jesus (and two angels) appeared before Mary. No other gospel mentions this. It's kind of an important thing to note.

So Matthew says one angel, Luke and Mark say two angels, and John says two angels and Jesus. These stories contradict each other.

As for your point about some parts perhaps being omitted or expanding on depending on who the gospel was being written for, why would they need to change whether it was one angel or two? Matthew clearly indicates there was one angel. And why would three of the gospels, in a story about Jesus rising from the dead, not mention that he appeared to Mary outside the tomb?

These aren't little details or rephrasing what he said.... we're talking about angels, and Jesus appearing on the third day after his death to Mary. Kind of important.

Wh1stler

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, I thought I replied to this but must have closed down before I had a chance to submit. So I'll be brief:



Matthew says there was only one angel. Does he explicitly say "only one angel"? No. But he does say "an angel", "the angel", "The guards were afraid of him". So yes, Matthew records that there was only one angel.

As for John's version where Jesus appears, yes, he appears to Mary outside the tomb. However, this is after Mary went to the tomb, saw it was open, went to get Simon Peter and 'the other disciple', brought them up, they left, and then Jesus (and two angels) appeared before Mary. No other gospel mentions this. It's kind of an important thing to note.

So Matthew says one angel, Luke and Mark say two angels, and John says two angels and Jesus. These stories contradict each other.

As for your point about some parts perhaps being omitted or expanding on depending on who the gospel was being written for, why would they need to change whether it was one angel or two? Matthew clearly indicates there was one angel. And why would three of the gospels, in a story about Jesus rising from the dead, not mention that he appeared to Mary outside the tomb?

These aren't little details or rephrasing what he said.... we're talking about angels, and Jesus appearing on the third day after his death to Mary. Kind of important.

Very good, Penn.

If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses in a court case then a judge would have to dismiss the case due to 'reasonable doubt'.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Very good, Penn.

If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses in a court case then a judge would have to dismiss the case due to 'reasonable doubt'.

And if they tallied they way some people wanted he'd suspect coaching and collusion.

Penn

tommy2bad wrote: »

And if they tallied they way some people wanted he'd suspect coaching and collusion.

Again, I'm not expecting every word to be the same, but some of these details should be the same in each Gospel for the story to be true. How could only one Gospel mention that Jesus appeared? Again, it's an important thing to note. It's a hugely important part of the story.

It's like in a murder trial where the victim was shot, one witness saying the suspect had a gun, two other witnesses saying he had two knives, and one witness saying he had one knife. It's kind of an important fact that he had a gun. The kind of thing that you don't forget. Just like it's important to the story that Jesus appeared to Mary (yet only one gospel notes this), or that there were at least two angels (where one gospel says there was only one angel). They're angels.

If two angels appeared before me, you can be damn sure I'd remember that there was two of them. Does it matter that two angels appeared to me rather than one? Probably not. But it was two, and if anyone asked me, or wanted to write a story about it, I'd make sure to say there was two. The kind of thing you don't forget.

PDN

Penn wrote: »

Matthew says there was only one angel. Does he explicitly say "only one angel"? No. But he does say "an angel", "the angel", "The guards were afraid of him". So yes, Matthew records that there was only one angel.

Not true. Matthew refers to one angel, perhaps because that was mentioned to him by a specific eye witness. But he neither affirms nor excludes the presence of another angel. So it is manifestly untruthful to claim that "Matthew records that there was only one angel".

As for John's version where Jesus appears, yes, he appears to Mary outside the tomb. However, this is after Mary went to the tomb, saw it was open, went to get Simon Peter and 'the other disciple', brought them up, they left, and then Jesus (and two angels) appeared before Mary. No other gospel mentions this. It's kind of an important thing to note.

That does not constitute a contradiction. There could be any number of plausible reasons why the other Gospels don't mention this.

Church tradition has long held that "the other disciple" who accompanied Peter to the tomb was John. Later scholarship leans more towards a Johannine community. Either way, that would explain why this Gospel-writer could have more access to Mary Magdalene's first hand testimony.

So Matthew says one angel, Luke and Mark say two angels, and John says two angels and Jesus. These stories contradict each other.

Again, not true. A contradiction would be something that logically excludes something else. None of the statements in the above sentence logically exclude any of the others.

As for your point about some parts perhaps being omitted or expanding on depending on who the gospel was being written for, why would they need to change whether it was one angel or two? Matthew clearly indicates there was one angel. And why would three of the gospels, in a story about Jesus rising from the dead, not mention that he appeared to Mary outside the tomb?

If they were concentrating on the testimony of someone known to the writer or the audience (eg Mary, Mary Magdalene, Joanna,) then it would make perfect sense. Also we don't know whether the Gospel-writers had access to the same eye witnesses or not.

Another possible explanation lies in the fact that biblical scholars generally agree that Mark's was the first Gospel to be written, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources. Scholars have often commentated on how Luke appears to be the most careful historian of the Gospel-writers. He was not an eye-witness, but he appears to have researched and checked his sources. Therefore it makes perfect sense that Luke could have located a further eye-witness or two and realised that there were two angels.

These aren't little details or rephrasing what he said.... we're talking about angels, and Jesus appearing on the third day after his death to Mary. Kind of important.

Actually, for the purposes of the Gospels, it matters not one jot whether there were one angels or two.

Wh1stler wrote:

If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses in a court case then a judge would have to dismiss the case due to 'reasonable doubt'.

And that is based on your expertise as a historian, a biblical scholar, or a lawyer?

Many lawyers through the years have commented that the Gospel resurrection accounts add up to very convincing testimony with an authentic feel, rather than the neatness you would expect from fiction.

PDN

So, anyone decided to come up with an actual contradiction yet, as opposed to their entirely subjective opinions of how they think people might have acted centuries ago if they met angels or a guy raised from the dead?

tommy2bad

And you have to remember the context of the events, an executed criminals body disappears, his closest friends trying to keep their head down, probably not hanging around in large groups. Then they start seeing angles , the dead guy turns up, all this while coming to terms with the end what they thought was the coming of the messiah.
If the stories are confused its what you would expect.

Penn

PDN wrote: »

Not true. Matthew refers to one angel, perhaps because that was mentioned to him by a specific eye witness. But he neither affirms nor excludes the presence of another angel. So it is manifestly untruthful to claim that "Matthew records that there was only one angel".

Okay then. There were 100,000,000 angels in the tomb. It was a big tomb. The penthouse tomb.

If there was more than one angel (and bearing in mind, it's an angel, not the kind of thing you forget or gloss over), then yes, it is important to note how many angels there were. You talk about "entirely subjective opinions", your claim that Matthew doesn't exclude the presence of another angel is an entirely subjective opinion.

Again, "an angel", "The angel", "guards were afraid of him". Not only do these not indicate the presence of another angel, but these are all singular terms, indicating one angel.

But y'know what, we'll agree to disagree.

PDN wrote: »

Again, not true. A contradiction would be something that logically excludes something else. None of the statements in the above sentence logically exclude any of the others.

Well the fact that three gospels don't mention Jesus was there, would contradict the gospel which says he was. And I'm sorry, but I don't accept that "They don't say he was there, but they don't say he wasn't" (flippant paraphrasing on my part), because it's Jesus. If Jesus had appeared at the tomb, that would have been the main part of all the gospels. That would have been mentioned in all the gospels over however many angels were there. "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." This was right after he appeared to her, so by the time any gospel writers were hearing about what happened, Jesus would have been mentioned. Yet three gospel writers left him out.

How is that not a contradiction?

PDN

Penn wrote: »

Okay then. There were 100,000,000 angels in the tomb. It was a big tomb. The penthouse tomb.

There is a monotonous pattern here.
a) Claim that contradictions exist.
b) Fail to come up with a contradiction when asked to do so.
c) In frustration resort to mockery.

If there was more than one angel (and bearing in mind, it's an angel, not the kind of thing you forget or gloss over), then yes, it is important to note how many angels there were. You talk about "entirely subjective opinions", your claim that Matthew doesn't exclude the presence of another angel is an entirely subjective opinion.

No, it is a fact. Pure hard logic, in fact.

If Matthew said, "There was only one angel" then that would exclude a second angel.

Again, "an angel", "The angel", "guards were afraid of him". Not only do these not indicate the presence of another angel, but these are all singular terms, indicating one angel.

That's rather missing the point. Singular terms indicate that there was an angel. They do not exclude a second angel.

For example, I can truthfully say, "I remember watching the 1971 FA Cup Final on TV. Charlie George scored a great goal and Arsenal won the game."

That statement uses singular terms, but it does not exclude the two earlier goals that were scored in that match.

Well the fact that three gospels don't mention Jesus was there, would contradict the gospel which says he was.

Do you actually understand what a 'contradiction' is?

How is that not a contradiction?

Because the one does not exclude the possibility of the other.

PDN

Just one other suggestion. It may well be that Matthew and Mark only speak of one angel because only one of the angels spoke. So that eye-witnesses may have said to Mark something along the lines of:

"And this flipping big angel said to us ...."

Again, the scholarly consensus is that Mark's Gospel was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source. They also seem to have used another common source which is generally known as Q. As well as sharing Mark and Q as sources, both Matthew and Luke use material exclusive to themselves, which indicates that they gathered further material independently from each other.

So, it would be perfectly plausible if the following literary process took place.

1. Mark interviewed one or more of the women who concentrated on what 'the angel' (the one that spoke to them) said.

2. Matthew followed Mark, but one of his independent (ie one available to him but not to Luke) sources came from another of the women who mentioned meeting Jesus as they were running to tell the disciples.

3. Luke had an independent source who told him about there being two angels.

4. John, writing later than the others, had greater access to Mary Magdalene, so got her story in more detail.

The fact that some witnesses omitted some details cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be honestly described as a 'contradiction' - not if language retains any objective meaning.

Indeed, this is why investigators of any major incident interview as many witnesses as possible. It's not because they necessarily think that any one witness is lying. It is because some people remember things that others omit to mention. And this is one of the things that give the Gospel resurrection accounts the ring of truth.

Penn

Y'know what, you've raised some fair points which gives a fairly reasonable explanation, but in my opinion, there are still too many discrepancies and inconsistencies in how the story is presented in the gospels. But I guess at this point, before it descends into what usually happens with looking up definitions of words, I think it's basically a difference of opinion at this point, so I'm bowing out for now.

marienbad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracon#Biblical_period_ostraca

An overview of ostracon through the ages.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

You see, this is where cutting and pasting from websites gets you into trouble. You would be far better to try actually reading for yourself the passages you refer to.

Hmm , looks like ISAW just copied and pasted from Wikipedia in post #3975 How come the hypocrites aren't pointing that one out to us all?

So, although the town was indeed built on the hill, the brow of the hill was outside of the town - which exactly fits the description of Mount Precipice in relation to Nazareth.

Once again, no contradiction there.
Its completely obvious from the very pictures you posted that the town is not built on a hill like the bible verse says...not outside of town, but on the town. Not a mile away from town. What is the definition of an ignorant person?



The last book of the Old Testament was written around 440 BC - so only an idiot would use the Old Testament to argue about whether a town existed four centuries later.

As for mentioning the Talmud or Josephus - that makes no sense whatsoever. Since both of these were written after 70AD, when you yourself admit that Nazareth did exist, there can't be any significance in their not mentioning it, can there?

Arguments from silence prove nothing. I haven't mentioned San Francisco in this post. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Paul never mentions Bethlehem in his letters. Does that mean it didn't exist either?
Come on, you'll have to do better than this! It seems you are looking for a written record pre 70 AD that states "Hi, I am a town called Nazareth that doesn't exist yet. I am here to let you know that I won't exist until 70 AD. Lol Was Bethlehem on the Roman tax census of towns? haha

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

Again, that is an argument from silence. We don't have complete Roman tax records or census records of every town in Palestine, so that can hardly be offered as proof of anything.
What else would you look to show the towns first date of existance??? Were are trying to show outside of the redacted gospels when the town of Nazareth came to be. If it doesn't show until 70 ad, then we only know for certain that it was around for sure by 70 ad.



Produce it? Amazingly enough I don't carry the Caesarea Maritima Inscription in my back pocket. It dates from the third century and lists where some members of the different courses of priests went to live when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. One of them went to Nazareth - which tells us that Nazareth was already in existence at that point.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that some scholars think this inscription refers to a settlement of priests 65 years later - but that would be a stretch since, after 70AD, no priests served in courses as there was no Temple for them to do so.

Actually I never knew about this item, and thank you for pointing it out. Thank you also for pointing out that it is dated 200years after the fact again, so is likely a forgery. At least I know you are trying to be open minded in this regard.

seeskaskooch

ISAW wrote: »

WHERE?



All discussed in the first two centuries of Christianity - you have the sources.

I can't believe I am answering this one! We don't need big brother to tell us what to think here. You can follow where your own reason will take you. Obviously, if the Ebionites had different opinions of what Jesus thought than the Universal church, they would be heretics - those of opinion that is not with orthodox belief. Otherwise, all the Christians of todays world would be holding onto Ebionite views.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

I wish that just for once somebody would actually get it right when they refer to Church Councils. Christian writers and thelogians were explaining the Trinity centuries before Chalcedon. And the Council of Nicaea outlined Trinitarian beliefs over 125 years before Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon dealt with the Nestorian 'heresy'.

Thanks again. I completely listed the wrong council I won't do that again! I meant the Council of Constantinople, the one whiched caused the schism in the church because the east and west couldn't agree on the nature of Jesus.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

So, anyone decided to come up with an actual contradiction yet, as opposed to their entirely subjective opinions of how they think people might have acted centuries ago if they met angels or a guy raised from the dead?

I think the mod PDN's answers are quite similar to the christian guy giving answers in this site! lol http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

seeskaskooch

Penn wrote: »

Okay then. There were 100,000,000 angels in the tomb. It was a big tomb. The penthouse tomb.

If there was more than one angel (and bearing in mind, it's an angel, not the kind of thing you forget or gloss over), then yes, it is important to note how many angels there were. You talk about "entirely subjective opinions", your claim that Matthew doesn't exclude the presence of another angel is an entirely subjective opinion.

Again, "an angel", "The angel", "guards were afraid of him". Not only do these not indicate the presence of another angel, but these are all singular terms, indicating one angel.

But y'know what, we'll agree to disagree.




Well the fact that three gospels don't mention Jesus was there, would contradict the gospel which says he was. And I'm sorry, but I don't accept that "They don't say he was there, but they don't say he wasn't" (flippant paraphrasing on my part), because it's Jesus. If Jesus had appeared at the tomb, that would have been the main part of all the gospels. That would have been mentioned in all the gospels over however many angels were there. "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." This was right after he appeared to her, so by the time any gospel writers were hearing about what happened, Jesus would have been mentioned. Yet three gospel writers left him out.

How is that not a contradiction?

It is, but some people willingly stay blind to that which doesn't suit their neat and tidy little world of belief about how they want the world to be. They only look in a narrow minded way to prove their reality, and miss out on the wood for the trees. It keeps them blind, but happy. Delusional with the precursors of a psychosis, but comfortable in cloud cuckoo land. Really, seeing angels as described in Luke?? And your going to accept this as valid testimony??
There were zombies too in Jesus' day. Lazarus was supposedly dead for 4 days and was stinking already, but he apparently was raised and walked around too! (Although it is only important to mention only in one of the 4 gospels...even though it is the biggest miracle this Jesus guy preformed, and the reason why the jews conspired to get him nailed...hmm yet another contradiction?) Zombies again are mentioned in Matthew 27 : 51 At that moment the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook. The rocks split. 52 Tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs. Looks like another return of the dawn of the dead to me!

Morbert

I normally don't wade into Biblical narrative issues, as I am usually happy to accept that there is a coherent one. But I am interested in what Christians think of the following:

"Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

I don't really understand what is meant by the above passage, especially regarding an allegorical understanding of genesis.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

I normally don't wade into Biblical narrative issues, as I am usually happy to accept that there is a coherent one. But I am interested in what Christians think of the following:

"Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

I don't really understand what is meant by the above passage, especially regarding an allegorical understanding of genesis.

You're going to get very different answers from different posters on this one. For example, I know Wolfsbane will certainly interpret this verse differently from how I do.

In my view the key to understanding this is in the next bit that follows on from what you quoted: "Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."


We know that Timothy was at Ephesus, and the cult of Artemis in that city exalted her as a fertility goddess and as the protector of women. Paul is saying, in contrast to the claims of the Artemis cult, that faith in Christ will preserve the mother during childbirth (an understandable preoccupation given the rather horrific mortality rate during childbirth in the First Century).

It may well be that priestesses from the Artemis cult were bringing false teaching into the Ephesus church, and Paul was trying to encourage Timothy to combat this.

Genesis Chapters 1 to 3, according to those who view them as an extended parable, are teaching that the one true God created the universe, as opposed to the polytheistic creation myths. Paul, by quoting it in this context, was able to set it against the teachings of the Artemis cult. Also, by stressing how Eve was deceived and then led Adam astray when he should have known better, Paul was telling Timothy to get the Artemis priestesses to shut up lest they led the men of the church into sin, just as Eve led Adam to sin.

Then again, that just my opinion. I may be totally wrong - it wouldn't be the first time.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

You're going to get very different answers from different posters on this one. For example, I know Wolfsbane will certainly interpret this verse differently from how I do.

In my view the key to understanding this is in the next bit that follows on from what you quoted: "Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."


We know that Timothy was at Ephesus, and the cult of Artemis in that city exalted her as a fertility goddess and as the protector of women. Paul is saying, in contrast to the claims of the Artemis cult, that faith in Christ will preserve the mother during childbirth (an understandable preoccupation given the rather horrific mortality rate during childbirth in the First Century).

It may well be that priestesses from the Artemis cult were bringing false teaching into the Ephesus church, and Paul was trying to encourage Timothy to combat this.

Genesis Chapters 1 to 3, according to those who view them as an extended parable, are teaching that the one true God created the universe, as opposed to the polytheistic creation myths. Paul, by quoting it in this context, was able to set it against the teachings of the Artemis cult. Also, by stressing how Eve was deceived and then led Adam astray when he should have known better, Paul was telling Timothy to get the Artemis priestesses to shut up lest they led the men of the church into sin, just as Eve led Adam to sin.

Then again, that just my opinion. I may be totally wrong - it wouldn't be the first time.

But faith in Christ does nothing to lower mortality rates really, does it? And weren't women who had given birth required to be re-baptised as they were considered unclean until quite recently?

Also, it should be pointed out that Eve was not deceived by the serpent; the serpent spoke the truth. It was actually God who attempted the deception. I mean if God had said, 'If you eat from that tree I will kill you' rather than simply implying that the fruit was poisonous then you might have a point when you say that Adam should have known better but that isn't what happened. God had to take further steps in order to make sure that Adam and Eve would perish by denying them access to the tree of life.

In this respect, God was the deceiver, not the serpent whose words were true; whose truth was validated by God who feared that Adam would become 'Like the Gods'.

Besides, I fail to see how one can commit a sin without the faculty of morality. Eating the fruit is how he got a conscience wasn't it?

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

But faith in Christ does nothing to lower mortality rates really, does it?

That is a matter of opinion. Of course if you have any evidence comparing the rates of mortality in childbirth between Christians and non-Christians in Ephesus in the First Century then feel free to post it here. That would probably make you quite famous in the field of biblical studies and history.

And weren't women who had given birth required to be re-baptised as they were considered unclean until quite recently?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the meaning of Paul's words to Timothy in the First Century?

Also, it should be pointed out that Eve was not deceived by the serpent; the serpent spoke the truth. It was actually God who attempted the deception. I mean if God had said, 'If you eat from that tree I will kill you' rather than simply implying that the fruit was poisonous then you might have a point when you say that Adam should have known better but that isn't what happened. God had to take further steps in order to make sure that Adam and Eve would perish by denying them access to the tree of life.

Again, I was addressing Morbert's question. Exegesis of that passage means trying to discern what Paul meant, and how Paul would have understood Genesis - not worrying about your misunderstanding of Genesis.

Besides, I fail to see how one can commit a sin without the faculty of morality. Eating the fruit is how he got a conscience wasn't it?

No, it wasn't. Genesis simply tells us that their eyes were opened to realise they were naked.

Toby Take a Bow

PDN wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion. Of course if you have any evidence comparing the rates of mortality in childbirth between Christians and non-Christians in Ephesus in the First Century then feel free to post it here. That would probably make you quite famous in the field of biblical studies and history.

Could you not compare rates of childbirth nowadays in countries that are of a reasonable similar standard of development?

Western rates of development might not be the best to compare, maybe choose a 3rd world muslim country and a 3rd world Christian country with similarly poor hospital access. Of course you'd be presuming that the women answering the questions are truthful as to their faith.

PDN

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Could you not compare rates of childbirth nowadays in countries that are of a reasonable similar standard of development?

Western rates of development might not be the best to compare, maybe choose a 3rd world muslim country and a 3rd world Christian country with similarly poor hospital access. Of course you'd be presuming that the women answering the questions are truthful as to their faith.

Not really. I don't think that the faith of those in a so-called 'Christian' country is necessarily anything like the faith practiced in apostolic times.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion. Of course if you have any evidence comparing the rates of mortality in childbirth between Christians and non-Christians in Ephesus in the First Century then feel free to post it here. That would probably make you quite famous in the field of biblical studies and history.

From http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1870-1914

"But even in the early decades of the twentieth century, childbirth was life-threatening for many mothers. Geographical location and social class were major determining factors in mortality. Irish infant mortality rates as a whole were fairly low by European standards, but babies born in urban areas were almost twice as vulnerable as those born in the country: the urban infant mortality rate was 150 per 1,000 live births, rural mortality was 74. A baby born into the family of a labourer was seventeen times more likely to die within a year than the child of a professional."

That does seem to mean a lot of devout Catholics were losing children.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure what that has to do with the meaning of Paul's words to Timothy in the First Century?

It seems that Paul believed that it was all his mother's fault.

PDN wrote: »

Again, I was addressing Morbert's question. Exegesis of that passage means trying to discern what Paul meant, and how Paul would have understood Genesis - not worrying about your misunderstanding of Genesis.

No, you weren't; you were accusing the serpent of an act that was actually committed by God.

The misunderstanding is yours.

PDN wrote: »

No, it wasn't. Genesis simply tells us that their eyes were opened to realise they were naked.

So God didn't want Adam and Eve to realise they were naked?

Is God some kind of 'voyeur'?

You seem to be implying that God considers the wearing of clothes to be evil.

Also, to design a tree of knowledge of good and evil that can do no more than inform the eater of its fruit of his/her nakedness seems rather pointless.

Did the fall of man occur only because God wanted to be the only who knew that Adam and Eve were naked?

In order to view Genesis in the way that you do, one has to ignore the actual words of Genesis.

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Hmm , looks like ISAW just copied and pasted from Wikipedia in post #3975 How come the hypocrites aren't pointing that one out to us all?

Because
1. I supply a reference to the original source
2. I used the content to illustrate a point

The point being that you claimed nazareth didnt exist bezfore christianity.

I pointed out the word by the Prophet Isiah referring to another prophet that was to come mentions "Nazar" in it.

"Cut and paste" and "quoting to support/illustrate a point"
are quote different.

I have given you references on "citation" so you should know that now.

And you still havent answered about being a muslim. are you?

The last book of the Old Testament was written around 440 BC - so only an idiot would use the Old Testament to argue about whether a town existed four centuries later.

So you are not a Muslim because you don't believe in prophesy?

You are aware Isiah is about the Prophesy of the Messiah to come?
The one Christians believe founded Christianity?

As for mentioning the Talmud or Josephus - that makes no sense whatsoever. Since both of these were written after 70AD, when you yourself admit that Nazareth did exist, there can't be any significance in their not mentioning it, can there?

I cant see what point you are making here.
If it is mentioned after Christ then it is evidence that it was jusqt invented then according to you. but if it was mentioned before Christ that cant be true because it didnt exist until after Christ?

Both of these rest on a personal belief that it didnt exist before Christ.

You have been shown archeological and written evidence of a town existing there long before Christ. the fact that you believe it didnt exist does not change that evidence.

Come on, you'll have to do better than this! It seems you are looking for a written record pre 70 AD that states "Hi, I am a town called Nazareth that doesn't exist yet. I am here to let you know that I won't exist until 70 AD. Lol Was Bethlehem on the Roman tax census of towns? haha

because you believe it didnt exist . but you have been shown the word in Hebrew referring to the coming Messiah existed centuries eariler and you have been shown archeological evidence of a "town" in the very spot 700 years before Christ.

Your argument is like a biblical fundamentalist who cant accept radiometric dating can be true because it shows that things can be millions of years oild but they believe things can be at most thousands of years old.

And again Ilml ask are you a Muslim?
I ask because certain Muslims reject Greek rationality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi#Tenets

Salafis reject speculative theology (kalam) that involves discourse and debate in the development of the Islamic creed. They consider this process a foreign import from Greek philosophy alien to the original practice of Islam.

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

What else would you look to show the towns first date of existance??? Were are trying to show outside of the redacted gospels when the town of Nazareth came to be. If it doesn't show until 70 ad, then we only know for certain that it was around for sure by 70 ad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Ancient_times
Archaeological research revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3 km) from current Nazareth, dating back roughly 9000 years (to what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era.

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approx. 100 × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. This "Venerated Area" underwent extensive excavation in 1955-65 by the Franciscan priest Belarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology." Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC), pointing to substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when many towns in the area were destroyed by the Assyrians.

Goring-Morris, A.N. "The quick and the dead: the social context of Aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh." In: I. Kuijt (ed.), Social Configurations of the Near Eastern Neolithic: Community Identity, Hierarchical Organization, and Ritual (1997).

"Pre-Christian Rituals at Nazareth". Archaeology: A Publication of the Archaeological Institute of America. November/December 2003.

http://www.archaeology.org/0311/newsbriefs/nazareth.html

Note the words "Nazareth" and "Pre-Christian" in the title?

Archaeological investigations near Nazareth--Jesus' boyhood home--have revealed that the area was a major cult center 8,000 years before the time of Christ.