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

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…130131133135136…327

Comments

  • Options
    #3962
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #3963
    seeskaskooch
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭seeskaskooch


    PDN wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Precipice

    precipice1.jpg

    MtPrecipitation2s.jpg
    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.


  • Options
    #3964
    seeskaskooch
    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


  • Options
    #3965
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    seeskaskooch 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.

    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?


  • Options
    #3966
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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
  • Options
    #3967
    seeskaskooch
    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.


  • Options
    #3968
    seeskaskooch
    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!


  • Options
    #3969
    seeskaskooch
    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?


  • Options
    #3970
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #3971
    seeskaskooch
    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
  • Options
    #3972
    seeskaskooch
    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?


  • Options
    #3973
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #3974
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #3975
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #3976
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #3977
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #3978
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #3979
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    seeskaskooch wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #3980
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #3981
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #3982
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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! :)


  • Options
    #3983
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #3984
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3985
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #3986
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,324 ✭✭✭✭Penn


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


  • Options
    #3987
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #3988
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users 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!


  • Options
    #3989
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #3990
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,324 ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #3991
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Does it matter?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement