Godschild Wrote:Jesus appeared to 500 people during the 40 days after the resurrection to the ascending.

Acts 1:2-3,9 explicitly explains how his ascension was after 40 days. What would John say about this!

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

8 days.

Mark and Luke?


The same day as the resurrection.

To believe Acts or not to believe. That is the question.

Quote:You can not disprove Christ and His apostles, I know that's not your burden, it does not matter, the fact remains that no one can disprove Christ and His apostles.

The fact is I have yet to see evidence that proves Jesus and the Apostles were people in history.

Quote:No the apologetic does not go like that, the OT and NT mesh together well, showing us Christ is who He said He was.

No, that is how it goes. Was Jesus just a lunatic or really telling the truth? If he was a lunatic then he would have remained dead, but because he apparently didn't.... etc.
What I was saying is that it doesn't occur to many people that there's a 3rd option. Never.existed.
I used to pull this apologetic line all the time but it's heavily flawed from a historical p.o.v.

(April 1, 2012 at 12:34 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Each of the Gospel accounts report events from the perscpective of the four writers. Where one writer glosses over certain happenings, the other writers supply the details. The four Gospel accounts compliment each other, and taken together, give us a more comprehensive picture of what happened. No Gospel account directly contradicts any of the others. I made a side-by-side comparision of all four and assembled for you the followings narrative.

The guards watch dumbfounded as an angel uses an earthquake to roll away the stone that had sealed the tomb. The guards flee in terror. Mary Magdelalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and other unnamed women go to visit the grave.

Matt 28:2-4 is the only Gospel account to supply details about the guards and the earthquake.
John 20:1 focuses on Mary Magdelalene to the exclusion of the other woment in the party.
Matt 28:1 also focuses on Mary Magdelaene, incidentally mentions Mary mother of James, but not the other women.
Luke 24:10 identifies Joanna as one of the women in the party.

When they arrive they see that the tomb has been opened and they see a youth sitting on the stone. The child tells them that Jesus isn't there because he had risen and that they should tell the disciples. The youth also tells them that Jesus will meet them in Galelie.Some or all of the women then enter the tomb. Two men suddenly appear. The men say, "He is not here...". The women bow to the ground in reverence. Then they go back to some the disciples reporting what the youth and the two men had said. Mary Magdalene appears to remember what was said but still believes someone carted away the body.

None of the disciples present believe the women. Mary Magdalene leads Peter and John back to the tomb so they could see for themselves..John rushes ahead but doesn't enter. He watches from the outside as Peter goes into the tomb and examines the burial wrappings. While John and Peter are examining the tomb, the two men appear to Mary again. This time Jesus is with them although she doesn't recognize him until he says her name.

Matt 28:7 records what the youth said then skips all the intervining details and goes direct to the appearence in the upper room.
Mark 16:7 also records the encounter with the youth, but omits the details of the two men. Mark also skips over Peter, John's and Mary's visit.
Luke 24:12 focuses on Peter as the central character to the exclusion of John and Mary.
John 20:8-18 adds all the details relating John and Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile, two of the disciples, one named Cleopas, are walking to Emmas, They meet a man on the road and have dinner with him and discuss the events of the Passion. Suddenly the two disciples finally recognize the man as the risen Christ.

Mark 16 and John 20 do not record this particualar visitation.

Finally, everyone is united for dinner. Peter and John report to the rest that the tomb was empty. The two disciples returning from Emmau chime in and report their encounter with Jesus. And the reports of Mary Magdalene and the other women are fresh in their minds. Everyone is confused. The remaining disciples, including Thomas, don't believe any of it until finally Jesus appears within their midst to clear up the events of the day.

And that is how it happened...

Those who say that the four Gospel accounts conflict have not taken the time to complete the puzzle. I have done so for you, so that you may understand the story in its entirety.

The empty tomb puzzle is not a puzzle but a story that is almost entirely dependent on the gospel of Mark. Here is a partial list of those who wrote about the historical unreliability of the empty tomb story (I'll restrict the writers to those of the last century and put em in alphabetical order.): Marcus Borg, Günther Bornkamm, Gerald Baldock Bostock, Rudolf Bultmann, Peter Carnley, John Dominic Crossan, Steven Davies, Maurice Goguel, Michael Goulder, Hans Grass, Charles Guignebert, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Randal Helms, Herman Hendrickx, Roy Hoover, Helmut Koester, Hans Küng, Alfred Loisy, Burton Mack, Willi Marxsen, Gerd Lüdemann, Norman Perrin, Robert M. Price, Marianne Sawicki, John Shelby Spong, Howard M. Teeple and the Reverend John T. Theodore

Remember, this is a partial list of authors from last century. If you look without your blinders I am more than certain you can find many from this century.

---

(April 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm)padraic Wrote: Who was Joseph of Arimathea,really?

Josephus: Life Section 414 from Whiston’s Translation Wrote:... as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

You can see in the brackets where the author of Mark shamelessly stole the idea of Joseph of Aramathea. Also it is quite obvious where the story of Jesus being crucified with a criminal on each side of him came from. Also, the apologetic craze of the 18th century called the swoon theory (where Jesus didn't really die on the cross) most likely began after this passage was read.

In case anyone is interested in the full section, it can be found here.

---

(April 1, 2012 at 11:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I like to believe I'm an open minded and reasonable person.

Judging by this thread, either your mind is so open your brain fell out or you have open mind confused with gullible.

---

(April 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm)oxymoron Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

You get past it by remembering (duh) that the whole thing is not a historical treatise but a synthesised, copied, edited story with absolutely no external validation from legitimate, contemporary sources?

Besides that it seems that GC doesn't even know his idol (the bible). It was not a priest that rolled the stone away from the tomb. Bible says it was Joseph of Arimithea (or Joseph apo Mathias which is the exact Greek used in the passage from Josephus I cited above).

---

(April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am)Godschild Wrote: remains that no one can disprove Christ and His apostles.

You are off your meds again GC. But if you are so sure you can provide evidence (outside the bible which is the claim) go right ahead but be ready to have your delusion shattered.

(April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am)Godschild Wrote: Jesus appeared to 500 people during the 40 days after the resurrection to the ascending. The event in Acts 1:15 was on a single day after the ascending, this does not mean that the other 380 had turned from the way. Your misrepresentation of what scriptures say is no more than a ploy to deceive.

It specifically states brethren to the 500, biblical definition of brethren is those who accepted Jesus is their heart. After the ascension the number of believers dropped to 120. One would think their faith would be bolstered, instead of wandering off.
If my local shepherd lost 380 of his 500, he'd get the sack. So where did they all go. He was supposed to be addressing all of them.

(April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am)Godschild Wrote: Nero used the christians as scapegoat they did not burn Rome. Peter said in the scriptures that his death was near. Peter was jailed and beaten also, he had many chances to deny the resurrection, if it were not true. This shows that Peter died for the truth.

Never said they did burn rome, but when looking for a scapegoat, as I mentioned, claiming it was all a hoax would not have saved them. If Peter WAS beaten and jailed, then claiming it wasn't true would not have saved him. That wasn't why he was jailed. He was jailed for being an insurgent.

(April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am)Godschild Wrote: James the son of Zebedee, was killed by Herod Agrippa, not a roman solider. As I said above, Peter said his death was near, Paul also made the same statement. Even though Paul was not one of the 12 he spent much time with them, and more than likely would found out the lie if it were true. Paul also imprisoned many christians as Saul, why would a man turn from the stature he enjoyed, and suffer through the life of a christian.

I was talking about the roman persecution, where did James come from? Either way, the point stands, a soldier is not going to ignore his orders even if James were to renounce the faith.

Your second point is irrelevant. People die for cults all the time.

(April 4, 2012 at 2:15 am)Godschild Wrote:

NMF Wrote:For this argument "they would not die for a lie" to work, you need to show, that the resurrection of Jesus was a sufficiently impressive event to convince. It wasn't, only the diehards apparently were, which makes Christianity nothing more than a cult of gullibility gotten out of control.

Secondly, you need to show how each apostle died. But we have no facts here, no history, not even biblical support.

The argument is a smokescreen, pretending to knowledge you cannot possess about the facts of the situation.

500 saw and believed, you mean to tell me if you saw a friend who had been dead, walking around alive and well, you would not be convinced he was risen. The diehards as you call them were the ones Christ revealed Himself to, why would He reveal Himself to people who would not know Him.
By the way why haven't you addressed the second part of my statement, why didn't the Jewish priest just open the tomb and show everyone the body was still in the tomb?

He did, 500 of the brethren, who then just wandered off and got bored it seems.

Secondly, you claim the apostles died for their beliefs. Please show me biblical or historical mention of how they all died, and how they could have avoided death by claiming it wasn't true.
If you can't do this, then you are simply making things up, plain and simple that the apostles died for their beliefs.

I didn't address the second part of your statement, because its not something I have ever looked at in depth, and would be a poor commentator on it.
This does not allow for the fallacy of argument from silence.
Would you have me discuss something I have never read, so that you can point out the flaws? That would be ridiculous. If you like, I'll read up on the matter.

NoMoreFaith Wrote:I didn't address the second part of your statement, because its not something I have ever looked at in depth, and would be a poor commentator on it.
This does not allow for the fallacy of argument from silence.
Would you have me discuss something I have never read, so that you can point out the flaws? That would be ridiculous. If you like, I'll read up on the matter.

Read up on what matter? His question of why they were living for Christ if it was a lie is a dud. Until we can establish they actually existed then there's not much to discuss.

Exactly my point, its another smoke screen, answer a question with a question.

I never mentioned the why the jewish priest never reopened the tomb, because its not something I am familiar with. Nor do I see what relevance it has.

(April 4, 2012 at 7:56 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Exactly my point, its another smoke screen, answer a question with a question.

I never mentioned the why the jewish priest never reopened the tomb, because its not something I am familiar with. Nor do I see what relevance it has.

Yeah I mean in all honesty I see the logic behind Christianity if it were true. It all makes sense of how God would communicate with us but until we can take that first baby step and establish the Biblical Jesus and his Apostles existed then every single discussion about Christianity is useless.

Jesus is the root of Christianity and without him you've got nothing.

To be honest, even if Jesus and the Apostles existed, you still have to prove a supernatural connection to the story. Otherwise it still reads like the writings of early cult members.

(April 4, 2012 at 8:03 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: To be honest, even if Jesus and the Apostles existed, you still have to prove a supernatural connection to the story. Otherwise it still reads like the writings of early cult members.

Yeah true. Personally I wouldn't need that proof because back when I was a Christian the fact that I thought the NT was literally history recorded by witnesses was enough for me.

I think this is where atheists don't get it. Saying how stupid some of the supernatural stuff is (like the talking burning bush) doesn't add anything to the discussion. IF Jesus was real then that bush may very well have been burning and talking. God could do anything and you would have to go with it. So I don't blame the xtians for saying atheists are 'ignorant' or whatever because it's sort of true. That's not where the issue lies.

(April 4, 2012 at 3:18 am)Phil Wrote: Judging by this thread, either your mind is so open your brain fell out or you have open mind confused with gullible.

That you for making it clear that you have no intention of having a respectful conversation.

(April 4, 2012 at 10:16 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 4, 2012 at 3:18 am)Phil Wrote: Judging by this thread, either your mind is so open your brain fell out or you have open mind confused with gullible.

That you for making it clear that you have no intention of having a respectful conversation.

Conversation? With you? Maybe when you stop acting so damn condescending and you start utilizing reason but until then....not a chance, you are beneath contempt and deserving of nothing but derision.