Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

17778808283196

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    So, you're not going to suggest a contradiction or mistake in the Gospels that you can stand over as your opinion and that we could discuss?

    I'm getting a bad case of déjà vu.
    Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet? Isn't god all knowing? I am amazed that you would overlook the list. Here ISAW is copying and pasting from websites too, but you have no problem there? Oh the horrors! I copying and pasted a web site!! Yikes, you may have just learned something that you never did before! Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »


    Constantine was a politician - so looking for rationality in his actions might prove disappointing. However, I'm not sure what significance you find in such a pardon, given that it was contingent on Arius repenting of his views and conforming to a more orthodox position.
    Are you absolutely sure Arius did repent his views?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    ISAW wrote: »

    the world didnt start going round when galileo stated that it moved! Origin and cause are different.
    Christ didnt just start being god when some council decided upon it. As they view it it was always true. and it didnt originate in Chaldon anyway! There is ample evidence of the doctrine predating this council.



    No Paul did not actually meet Jesus . But her personally knew those that did. And apparently he did have visions. Muslims believe Mohammed talked to angels. do you expect this proves Mohammad was psychotic?
    Sure, Jesus' very divinity was voted on at Nicaea. Therefore, he started becoming god from that council date on for the western church. There is absolutely no place where Jesus admits to, even after being accused of being the son of god. What about Mohammad seeing angels? Didn't Joan of Arc also hear voices in her head? Paul claims to have went up into heaven too! though he doesn't know: god knows... sure look up phychosis. They all displayed symptoms of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    @ ISAW Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

    Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Precipice

    precipice1.jpg

    MtPrecipitation2s.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet? Isn't god all knowing?
    Strictly speaking the verse cited in your cut and paste travesty doesn't say Jesus was a prophet - it simply says that a Samaritan woman addressed Him as a prophet. But even if she was correct, that would still bot be a contradiction.

    Maybe you need to read up on what the Trinitarian view is? Historic Christianity teaches that Jesus was fully and properly man and, while on earth in the Incarnation, He voluntarily took on some of the limitations of humanity. The theological term for this is kenosis (Literally, emptying). So Jesus, during His Incarnation was not omnipresent - He could only be in one place at one time. Nor was He omniscient.

    Therefore, for Jesus to function as a prophet would entail no contradiction with any other statement in the Gospels. So, once again I ask you, where is the contradiction?

    The Samaritan woman addressed Jesus as a prophet. What other statement anywhere in the Gospels is contradicted by that? Is there a statement that says nobody ever viewed Jesus as a prophet? If so, then please point to it. If not, then please admit that you have failed to produce a contradiction.

    Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.
    Oh come on, surely you can do better than this kind of fluff?

    The father came to Jesus and said that His daughter had been dying, and by now would even be dead, and Jesus went and healed her and raised her from the dead.

    Where is the contradiction?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    you still have not answered my questions.
    Are you a Muslim?
    Are you a scholar?
    Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet?

    Because he is also a man. son of god and son of Man.
    Enda Kenny is Taoiseach but he also is a man and he is also a school teacher.
    Isn't god all knowing? I am amazed that you would overlook the list.

    they didnt over look it. it has been dealt with as far back as "Against heresies"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus#Irenaeus.27_theology_and_contrast_with_Gnosticism
    and other anti Nicean fathers in the first and second century.

    You have to understand christian views of the bible are not like Muslim views of the koran. Christians dont believe God dictated the Bible and then corrected all the bits that were written down in error so that everything was exactly as God said.
    Here ISAW is copying and pasting from websites too, but you have no problem there?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
    A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

    when I supply a source i comment on it and not just cut an paste. It is an illustration of a point. You just cut and pasted a list without showing the apparent "contradiction".
    I went through the last thirty or so of them which can be interpreted as not contradicting.

    Oh the horrors! I copying and pasted a web site!! Yikes, you may have just learned something that you never did before! Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.

    See also Luke 8:41-42: 41 Then a man named Jairus, a synagogue leader, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.
    At first, Mark records that the young girl "lieth at the point of death" (Mark 5:23), but shortly thereafter, word was received from Jarius' servants, "Thy daughter is dead." (Mark 5:35). Matthew mentions nothing about the servants coming afterward. It is believed by some commentators that in rendering Jarius' statement, "My daughter is even now dead," Matthew may simply be summarizing the two reports into one. That is certainly possible, and not a foreign literary occurrence in the Scriptures.

    Consider Matthew's account from a few different translations:
    — "My daughter is even now dead" (KJV)
    — "My daughter has by this died" (Darby)
    — "My daughter has just died" (NKJV)
    — "My daughter is just dead" (Weymouth)
    http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20071007.htm
    The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

    One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

    Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

    One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

    Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sure, Jesus' very divinity was voted on at Nicaea. Therefore, he started becoming god from that council date on for the western church.

    You seem to have ignored what you have just been shown
    the world didnt start going round when Galileo stated that it moved! It had already been moving. if galileo was the foirst to say it moved that didnt mean it only began moving when he said so did it?
    Likewise any church council is only affirming what is already held to be true.
    And you have been shown here that the concept of duailty and Trinity was firmly established by anti Nicean Fathers centuries before the council of Nicea.
    Origin isnt cause.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
    There is absolutely no place where Jesus admits to, even after being accused of being the son of god.

    again you have been shown christian scriptures where they took up stones to stone him because they believed he was making such a claim.
    You have been shown scriptures where Jesus tells people in the synagog he is the fulfillment of Isiah's Messianic Prophesy.


    "The truth is, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58 NLT)


    remember what the words 'I am' were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.
    http://y-jesus.com/jesus_believe_god_2.php
    Some may argue that this was an isolated instance. But Jesus also used "I AM" for himself on several other occasions. Let's look at some of these, trying to imagine our reactions upon hearing Jesus' radical claims:

    “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)
    “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6)
    “I am the only way to the Father” (John 14:6)
    “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25)
    “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11)
    “I am the door” (John 10:9)
    “I am the living bread” (John 6:51)
    “I am the true vine” (John 15:1)
    “I am the Alpha and Omega” Rev.1:7,8)

    What about Mohammad seeing angels? Didn't Joan of Arc also hear voices in her head? Paul claims to have went up into heaven too! though he doesn't know: god knows... sure look up phychosis. They all displayed symptoms of it.

    I raised the point because if you are a Muslim you cant then also claim Mohammad was psychotic.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    @ ISAW Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

    well you argue against yourself there!
    Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...

    so your argument now is that the scripture was invented? how then can you use it as evidence for your argument if you believe the source you use is unreliable?
    As it happens the New Testament can be recovered almost in eitirety from excerpts in Pre Nicean writings by church fathers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    ISAW wrote: »
    See also Luke 8:41-42: 41 Then a man named Jairus, a synagogue leader, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.


    http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20071007.htm
    The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

    One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

    Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

    One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

    Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.
    Jesus raises a dead girl...see the heading in the link: Check out Mark 5:39, and maybe even Luke 8:52, and instead of making excuses and/or ignoring it, just let it go accept the wording for what is simply shows... She either was dead, and a miracle occurred, or she was not dead and simply healed. Healing by laying on of hands still occurs to this day you know. One account she is brought back from the dead. The other she is simply only healed. If you are sick, it is possible to be healed. If you are dead, you can't really be healed...you may be brought back to life, but not healed. This would be like saying you were sick, and we brought you back to life. As you can see, this is impossible, as you weren't dead to begin with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Jesus raises a dead girl...see the heading in the link: Check out Mark 5:39, and maybe even Luke 8:52, and instead of making excuses and/or ignoring it, just let it go accept the wording for what is simply shows... She either was dead, and a miracle occurred, or she was not dead and simply healed. Healing by laying on of hands still occurs to this day you know. One account she is brought back from the dead. The other she is simply only healed. If you are sick, it is possible to be healed. If you are dead, you can't really be healed...you may be brought back to life, but not healed. This would be like saying you were sick, and we brought you back to life. As you can see, this is impossible, as you weren't dead to begin with.

    First off, you are aware that the heading isn't actually part of the biblical text, aren't you?

    Secondly, the Greek word used in these passages is sodzo - which simply means 'to save' or 'to make whole'. So ,to sodzo someone means to restore them to health or make them whole. So it is perfectly proper to use the word to refer to a dead person being restored to life again.

    So this is one of the great 'contradictions' that we were promised? That the New Testament uses a word that is also translated 'heal' to refer to someone being raised from the dead?

    Dear me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    Thanks PDN and yes they are very beautiful pictures, and they go exactly With my point. There is no city build on a hill as mentioned in Luke 4:29 - 'and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built'. This picture clearly shows the town is a long long way off and plainly couldn't be labelled as the brow of the hill on which that town in the pic is built on. The site of Nazareth does not appear on contemporary maps, neither in any books documents chronicles or military records of the period during Jesus’ time, whether of Roman or local compilation. The old testament does not refer to Nazareth. Neither does the Hebrew Talmud, and nor does Josephus mention the town in his 1st century The antiquities of the Jews or in The Jewish Wars. Nazareth first appeared around 70 ad and became a place of pilgrimage only from the 6th century. (Ahmed Osman, the House of the Messiah, ch.5, pp30-32) Even Paul, who relates many of Jesus’s activities in his letters, makes no allusion to Nazareth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    First off, you are aware that the heading isn't actually part of the biblical text, aren't you?

    Secondly, the Greek word used in these passages is sodzo - which simply means 'to save' or 'to make whole'. So ,to sodzo someone means to restore them to health or make them whole. So it is perfectly proper to use the word to refer to a dead person being restored to life again.

    So this is one of the great 'contradictions' that we were promised? That the New Testament uses a word that is also translated 'heal' to refer to someone being raised from the dead?

    Dear me.
    Ok, So dead or not? If it translates to "to make whole again", why not write it down in english as "he made her whole again?" And not "he healed her" or "he raised her from the dead" Hallelujah! a miracle! Looking like another set up for an alteration to me! here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%209:18&version=NIRV or here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%209:18&version=KJV


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Thanks PDN and yes they are very beautiful pictures, and they go exactly With my point. There is no city build on a hill as mentioned in Luke 4:29 - 'and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built'. This picture clearly shows the town is a long long way off and plainly couldn't be labelled as the brow of the hill on which that town in the pic is built on. The site of Nazareth does not appear on contemporary maps, neither in any books documents chronicles or military records of the period during Jesus’ time, whether of Roman or local compilation. The old testament does not refer to Nazareth. Neither does the Hebrew Talmud, and nor does Josephus mention the town in his 1st century The antiquities of the Jews or in The Jewish Wars. Nazareth first appeared around 70 ad and became a place of pilgrimage only from the 6th century. (Ahmed Osman, the House of the Messiah, ch.5, pp30-32) Even Paul, who relates many of Jesus’s activities in his letters, makes no allusion to Nazareth.

    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.

    Nazareth is built on the lower slopes of the hills, and the brow of the hill is a cliff outside the town - which is exactly what Luke 4:29 says: "They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff."

    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.
    The site of Nazareth does not appear on contemporary maps, neither in any books documents chronicles or military records of the period during Jesus’ time, whether of Roman or local compilation. The old testament does not refer to Nazareth. Neither does the Hebrew Talmud, and nor does Josephus mention the town in his 1st century The antiquities of the Jews or in The Jewish Wars. Nazareth first appeared around 70 ad and became a place of pilgrimage only from the 6th century. (Ahmed Osman, the House of the Messiah, ch.5, pp30-32) Even Paul, who relates many of Jesus’s activities in his letters, makes no allusion to Nazareth.
    Wrong again. Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD. It is listed as being the home of one of the priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.

    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 so better than this. If you're going to claim that the Gospels are full of contradictions then surely you can produce one for us? Even just one?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Ok, So dead or not? If it translates to "to make whole again", why not write it down in english as "he made her whole again?" And not "he healed her" or "he raised her from the dead" Hallelujah! a miracle! Looking like another set up for an alteration to me! here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%209:18&version=NIRV or here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%209:18&version=KJV

    The Bible was written in Greek, not English. So you are making yourself look extremely foolish if you try to manufacture a contradiction based on an English translation instead of what the actual biblical text says.

    In Greek the word heal can apply perfectly properly to someone being raised from the dead. No contradiction there. Please try harder.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    ISAW wrote: »
    well you argue against yourself there! I think you are getting confused here.


    so your argument now is that the scripture was invented? how then can you use it as evidence for your argument if you believe the source you use is unreliable?
    As it happens the New Testament can be recovered almost in entirety from excerpts in Pre Nicean writings by church fathers.
    Of course scripture was invented! Someone had to write it down, right? It is very unreliable. Look at all the arguments and fighting in the past over who's opinions of it were right? The fact that there was a very book titled "against heresies" (which really means against all other opinions (beliefs) other than our own. And if their weird opinion includes strange beliefs such as Resurrection, Ascension, Virgin births, rotting corpses coming to life, dead saints graves opening and their zombies walking about, flesh and blood eating rituals (cannibalism), and promises of getting into a fairy tale place when they die (of which no one know any truth if it even exists in the first place), then we know that this opinion (belief) is obviously wrong. Christianity follows a Paulinian heresy. Who did Jesus Christs actual disciples follow? What did Jesus' brother James the Just follow? Who were the ebionites/nazarenes? The early church fathers simply labels them as a bunch of heretics. Who's version of opinion or 'heresy' was the correct one? If there is so much dissension, it can only be concluded that the truth of the whole ordeal is very unlikely to what we have today - that being the Holy bible - as not being correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 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.

    Nazareth is built on the lower slopes of the hills, and the brow of the hill is a cliff outside the town - which is exactly what Luke 4:29 says: "They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff."

    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.


    Wrong again. Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD. It is listed as being the home of one of the priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.

    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 so better than this. If you're going to claim that the Gospels are full of contradictions then surely you can produce one for us? Even just one?
    you are ignoring this quote: "brow of the hill on which the town was built". Look at the picture again! lol It looks to me like the town is built on the plain, not the brow of the hill! :) Oh ya, No Roman tax records or census records of a Nazareth town either!

    As regards this:

    Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD. It is listed as being the home of one of the priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.

    Produce it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    The Bible was written in Greek, not English. So you are making yourself look extremely foolish if you try to manufacture a contradiction based on an English translation instead of what the actual biblical text says.

    In Greek the word heal can apply perfectly properly to someone being raised from the dead. No contradiction there. Please try harder.
    Really? The entire bible, including the Tanakh was written in greek??? Or only the earliest existing COPIES?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Of course scripture was invented! Someone had to write it down, right? It is very unreliable. Look at all the arguments and fighting in the past over who's opinions of it were right? The fact that there was a very book titled "against heresies" (which really means against all other opinions (beliefs) other than our own. And if their weird opinion includes strange beliefs such as Resurrection, Ascension, Virgin births, rotting corpses coming to life, dead saints graves opening and their zombies walking about, flesh and blood eating rituals (cannibalism), and promises of getting into a fairy tale place when they die (of which no one know any truth if it even exists in the first place), then we know that this opinion (belief) is obviously wrong. Christianity follows a Paulinian heresy. Who did Jesus Christs actual disciples follow? What did Jesus' brother James the Just follow? Who were the ebionites/nazarenes? The early church fathers simply labels them as a bunch of heretics. Who's version of opinion or 'heresy' was the correct one? If there is so much dissension, it can only be concluded that the truth of the whole ordeal is very unlikely to what we have today - that being the Holy bible - as not being correct.

    Mod Warning
    Oh dear, this particular brand of 'logic' again. People have disagreed on how to interpret the Bible over the ages - therefore it must be false? There were people who disagreed with true doctrine - therefore there is no such thing as true doctrine?

    seeskaskooch, this thread exists for debate purposes, And for a time it looked as if you might actually want to debate. However, as often happens with those who claim the Bible is full of contradictions, when you were pressed to point to an actual contradiction you failed to do so.

    Now at this stage, seeskaskooch, it looks like you're just indulging in a generalised rant to mock and attack Christian faith. Besides reeking of desperation, this is contrary to the Forum Charter. Please consider this as your one and only inthread warning. Either engage in actual debate or don't bother.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    @ ISAW

    As it happens the New Testament can be recovered almost in eitirety from excerpts in Pre Nicean writings by church fathers.

    Not much of an argument here. So is the gnostic gospels found at nag hammadi, and other earlier coptic writings. Authors and authenticity is still highly questionable. Its even been admitted by a person of highest authority in our day that the bibles redacted writings are a compromise of conflicting opinion. Would you like me to tell you who?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    Mod Warning
    Oh dear, this particular brand of 'logic' again. People have disagreed on how to interpret the Bible over the ages - therefore it must be false? There were people who disagreed with true doctrine - therefore there is no such thing as true doctrine?

    seeskaskooch, this thread exists for debate purposes, And for a time it looked as if you might actually want to debate. However, as often happens with those who claim the Bible is full of contradictions, when you were pressed to point to an actual contradiction you failed to do so.

    Now at this stage, seeskaskooch, it looks like you're just indulging in a generalised rant to mock and attack Christian faith. Besides reeking of desperation, this is contrary to the Forum Charter. Please consider this as your one and only inthread warning. Either engage in actual debate or don't bother.
    You made this comment here buddy:

    Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD. It is listed as being the home of one of the priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.
    I said produce it! Backseat modding deleted The forum is Existence of God debates and Atheism you were aware?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    you are ignoring this quote: "brow of the hill on which the town was built". Look at the picture again! lol It looks to me like the town is built on the plain, not the brow of the hill! :)

    I am not ignoring the quote. Taken at face value the quote says that they took Jesus to the brow of the hill - the hill on which the town is built. Nazareth is built on the lower slopes of a range of hills, and they took Jesus out of the town and up to the brow of the hills. So the quote from the Gospels is entirely consistent with the geography of Nazareth.
    Oh ya, No Roman tax records or census records of a Nazareth town either!
    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.

    As regards this:

    Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD. It is listed as being the home of one of the priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.

    Produce it!

    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.
    Really? The entire bible, including the Tanakh was written in greek??? Or only the earliest existing COPIES?
    It might be better if you addressed the points I raise rather than pedantic baiting. The context we are addressing here is to do with the Four Gospels, which were written in Greek.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Of course scripture was invented! Someone had to write it down, right? It is very unreliable. Look at all the arguments and fighting in the past over who's opinions of it were right?

    You are mixing up opinions about scripture and scripture.
    But the point i was making is you cant argue from the basis that scripture says something and then
    also argue that you cant depend on your source.
    If you cant depend on it then you cant cite it as a reliable source.
    The fact that there was a very book titled "against heresies" (which really means against all other opinions (beliefs) other than our own.

    Again you display your ignorance
    At least one of the anti Nicean fathers was originally a heretic.
    And if their weird opinion includes strange beliefs such as Resurrection, Ascension, Virgin births, rotting corpses coming to life, dead saints graves opening and their zombies walking about, flesh and blood eating rituals (cannibalism), and promises of getting into a fairy tale place when they die (of which no one know any truth if it even exists in the first place), then we know that this opinion (belief) is obviously wrong.

    Now yo are off into another load up unsupported assertions. Please try to stick with the list provided and go through them one by one.
    Who did Jesus Christs actual disciples follow? What did Jesus' brother James the Just follow? Who were the ebionites/nazarenes? The early church fathers simply labels them as a bunch of heretics.

    WHERE?
    Who's version of opinion or 'heresy' was the correct one? If there is so much dissension, it can only be concluded that the truth of the whole ordeal is very unlikely to what we have today - that being the Holy bible - as not being correct.

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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    You made this comment here buddy:

    Firstly, we have definite archeological evidence that Nazareth existed before 70AD.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77897370&postcount=3776

    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.

    There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.

    ve·ya·tza cho·ter mig·ge·za yi·shai ve·ne·tzer mi·sha·ra·shav yif·reh.

    http://biblos.com/isaiah/11-1.htm

    Isiah by the way is pre christian.

    you still havent answered
    are you a Muslim?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    OK, PDN, while seeskaskooch is off trying to locate that elusive "gotcha" contradiction, allow me, in the interest of being fair, ask you about Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    OK, PDN, while seeskaskooch is off trying to locate that elusive "gotcha" contradiction, allow me, in the interest of being fair, ask you about Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8.

    I know that was to PDN, but I'm just wondering, is there an alleged contradiction there somewhere? For the life of me I can't see any issues, and I've been trying! :) What am I missing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Anyone is free to answer ;) Hopefully in good spirit.

    I guess the apparent contradiction is a simple one. Take a staff (Mark 6:9) or don't take a staff (Luke 9:3 and Matthew 10:10).

    Just to add...

    I have found an answer here but I haven't had time to read it yet.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really? The entire bible, including the Tanakh was written in greek??? Or only the earliest existing COPIES?

    which is part of the reason i asked about you being a Muslim. For example No original Koran exists either. But yes a greek copy of the Hebrew bible existed and the language of the roman Empire was Greek.
    another reason i asked yu is that Muslims believe that scripture e.g the Koran was dictated from god. not alone that they believe in Hadiths dont they? they believe the hadiths are valid history dont they? and i have some problems with hadith of which you might not be aware.
    Care to answer them? Or will you avoid apparent contradictions in Islamic scriptures while you suggest Christian scripture is corrupt and made up?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Anyone is free to answer ;) Hopefully in good spirit.

    I guess the apparent contradiction is a simple one. Take a staff (Mark 6:9) or don't take a staff (Luke 9:3 and Matthew 10:10).

    Just to add...

    I have found an answer here but I haven't had time to read it yet.

    I wouldn't bother reading it if I were you. It seems like a lot of waffle and obfuscation. :)

    Interestingly the 'contradiction' doesn't occur in the King James Version. There Luke and Matthew use the plural (staves) and Mark uses the singular (staff). So it says that they were to take just one staff, but not to carry any spare ones.

    So why would the KJV do that, using a plural wheras modern versions use the singular? Because it follows Codex Alexandrinus, whereas most modern versions follow Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So, it may be that, in this case at least, the King James Version has followed the better variant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    I wouldn't bother reading it if I were you. It seems like a lot of waffle and obfuscation. :)

    Grand! I didn't fancy it anyway ;)
    PDN wrote: »
    Interestingly the 'contradiction' doesn't occur in the King James Version. There Luke and Matthew use the plural (staves) and Mark uses the singular (staff). So it says that they were to take just one staff, but not to carry any spare ones.

    So why would the KJV do that, using a plural wheras modern versions use the singular? Because it follows Codex Alexandrinus, whereas most modern versions follow Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So, it may be that, in this case at least, the King James Version has followed the better variant.

    Fair point. But Vaticanus and Sinaiticus pre-date Alexandrinus possibly between 40 to 115 years (approximations noted). Doesn't scholarship always assume as a rule of thumb that the earliest documents, especially if they are multiply attested, are likely to be the more accurate?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fair point. But Vaticanus and Sinaiticus pre-date Alexandrinus possibly between 40 to 115 years (approximations noted). Doesn't scholarship always assume as a rule of thumb that the earliest documents, especially if they are multiply attested, are likely to be the more accurate?

    It's a rule of thumb - but rules of thumb aren't infallible. This might be the exception that proves the rule! :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    It's a rule of thumb - but rules of thumb aren't infallible. This might be the exception that proves the rule! :)

    Again, this is fair enough. But I wonder if the uber-skeptics will not feel justified in applying the same method to texts and archaeology to arrive at dates that count against the truth claims of Christianity?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    Doubts into the bibles authenticity can extend beyond apparent contradictions between 2 pieces of biblical text. i.e. More work may be needed to convert someone to believe even if all the apparent textual contradictions have been explained.

    For example the bible seems quite clear on homosexual acts as being sinful. From my understanding, I think pretty much everywhere in the bible points in the same direction on this(i.e theres no contradictions), yet for some gay people a convincing argument as to why this is sinful has not been made.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Doubts into the bibles authenticity can extend beyond apparent contradictions between 2 pieces of biblical text. i.e. More work may be needed to convert someone to believe even if all the apparent textual contradictions have been explained.

    For example the bible seems quite clear on homosexual acts as being sinful. From my understanding, I think pretty much everywhere in the bible points in the same direction on this(i.e theres no contradictions), yet for some gay people a convincing argument as to why this is sinful has not been made.

    I think there's a big difference, though, between saying the Bible is full of contradictions, and not liking what the Bible teaches.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    On the third day after Jesus died, who was there when Jesus' tomb was opened and what did they find?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Penn wrote: »
    On the third day after Jesus died, who was there when Jesus' tomb was opened and what did they find?

    There were some guards there at the tomb when it was opened. We are not told that they 'found' anything.

    Shortly afterwards some women arrived, including the two Marys and Joanna. They found the stone was rolled away, the body of Jesus was gone, and at least two angels were there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    PDN wrote: »
    There were some guards there at the tomb when it was opened. We are not told that they 'found' anything.

    Shortly afterwards some women arrived, including the two Marys and Joanna. They found the stone was rolled away, the body of Jesus was gone, and at least two angels were there.

    The bible has some stories!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    The bible has some stories!

    I think most of us here already knew that the Bible has some stories in it, but thank you for sharing that information with us.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    PDN wrote: »
    There were some guards there at the tomb when it was opened. We are not told that they 'found' anything.

    Shortly afterwards some women arrived, including the two Marys and Joanna. They found the stone was rolled away, the body of Jesus was gone, and at least two angels were there.

    I ask because, the Bible gives conflicting reports:
    Burial of Jesus:

    Jesus’ burial is important because without it, there can be no tomb from which Jesus can arise in three days. It’s also historically implausible: crucifixion was intended as a shameful, horrible execution which included allowing the bodies to remain nailed up until they rotted off. It’s inconceivable that Pilate would have agreed to turn the body over to anyone for any reason. This may have something to do with why the gospel authors all have different stories about it.


    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.


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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

    So, that would mean that Luke is correct about who visited the tomb (the others are wrong), Mark, Luke and John are correct about the stone being rolled away (Matthew is wrong), and Luke and John are correct about there being two angels/men (Matthew and Mark are wrong).

    So, is Luke's version the only correct one? Why is his the right one and the others wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Does it matter?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Penn wrote: »
    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭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'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement