• John 20:1-2
  Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”
  
  John 20:11-14
  But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
  
  Matt 28:1-8
  Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
  
  Mark 16:1-8
  When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
  
  Luke 24:1-12
  But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marvelling at what had happened.

Well they've done a really bad job if they've invented this story because 1. there's four different accounts, and 2. their main witnesses are women not men.

However, we also see that Paul, for instance, takes the resurrection as common knowledge and never bothers to teach on it specifically. Having differing accounts is a good thing, because it means there's more than one witness attesting to it.

Also, we do not have a complete picture to begin with, and even putting all these accounts together we still do not have a complete picture, but what we do have is a larger picture than one account alone is able to convey.

Indeed if all four were exactly the same, you'd claim it was invented by one person and then copied verbatim by others. What is obvious is that there are at least 4 distinctly different narratives of the event that exist at the time the Gospels are written, and this can only be because the 11 told the story in their own ways.

So let's take a few facts they all agree on: Joseph of Arimathea owns the tomb, and has Jesus’ body placed in it, and he is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb first, and in the all the synoptic accounts she's accompanied by at least Mary the mother of Jesus. In Mark's account, Salome is also with them. Luke includes Joanna and makes a note that there were other women with them.

(November 18, 2013 at 7:52 am)Aractus Wrote: Indeed if all four were exactly the same, you'd claim it was invented by one person and then copied verbatim by others.

Of course we would; that would be what anyone would assume if the accounts were identical. The fact that the accounts are similar on many of the main points yet vary on the details does not, to me, strike me as out of the ordinary for the circumstances described. The event that they describe is the issue, and if we were to consider it for any other person than Jesus, it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a plausible explanation that does not involve a resurrection or the appearance of supernatural beings.

I think too much is made of the discrepancies in the details of a group of stories whose most critical points are made third-hand and from memories of events that are at least more than a decade past. It is pretty easy to piece together a more plausible story from what is written. Nor is it difficult to imagine motivations for inventing such a story.

Complete aside but:

Quote:In Mark's account, Salome is also with them.

Mark 16:1

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought Spices...."

Funny thing. I always interpreted that as Mary the mother of both James and Salome, not that Salome was there in her own right.

I think you are right, however, with the comma before the "and."

Never noticed it before.

---

Quote:So let's take a few facts they all agree on: Joseph of Arimathea owns the tomb, and has Jesus’ body placed in it, and he is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb first, and in the all the synoptic accounts she's accompanied by at least Mary the mother of Jesus. In Mark's account, Salome is also with them. Luke includes Joanna and makes a note that there were other women with them.

When you put it like that there's not much there. Even with the padding of additional details - like who Luke and Mark include you have very little there.

I'd also agree that they did a very poor job with the invention of this story but possibly for different reasons, with the obvious additions to Mark, the strange tense changes in Matthew - out of keeping with the way he wrote the rest of his gospel and so on.

John, of course, has the weakest case mainly due to the duration of time between the events and his writing putting him generations away from the action. He further doesn't help his case by citing a fishing story (surely the weakest miracle ever described) in his, unique to him version.

As for Luke, his account contains one of my favorite lines in the Bible:

Luke 24:51

While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into Heaven.

Written like he just jumped into a cab - although a cab would have caused quite the furore back then.

Surely that event, had it been real, would have deserved more description than that?

(November 18, 2013 at 9:30 am)Tonus Wrote: The fact that the accounts are similar on many of the main points yet vary on the details does not, to me, strike me as out of the ordinary for the circumstances described.

Yes I think on that point most of us would agree. I would just add to that "not out of the ordinary for separate testimonies".

Quote:The event that they describe is the issue, and if we were to consider it for any other person than Jesus, it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a plausible explanation that does not involve a resurrection or the appearance of supernatural beings.

What we have as written record, I believe written from c. 45-48 AD (which is just a couple of years from the event), but regardless of when the records are written - even if Mark is written in 55 AD or 65 AD, it doesn't change the fact that what we have in the gospels is an early narrative that goes right back to the contemporary accounts. Even more so if you're willing to say that John the Apostle penned his own Gospel (that'd be first hand and why his account is more different than the others).

Quote:I think too much is made of the discrepancies in the details of a group of stories whose most critical points are made third-hand and from memories of events that are at least more than a decade past. It is pretty easy to piece together a more plausible story from what is written. Nor is it difficult to imagine motivations for inventing such a story.

Yes there could be motivations for inventing such a story, however one has to ask the question if it was invented then why didn't the Romans simply produce the rotting corpse to thwart the early Christian movement? The problem if it was invented is that it'd leave some trace - either the Romans would have had the body or the disciples would have had it, or the Jews - somebody had to have the body, if it was not in the tomb, so who had it?

---

(November 18, 2013 at 9:41 am)max-greece Wrote: John, of course, has the weakest case mainly due to the duration of time between the events and his writing putting him generations away from the action. He further doesn't help his case by citing a fishing story (surely the weakest miracle ever described) in his, unique to him version.

That's an assumption. As I've discussed John could have been written as early as 55 AD assuming that Peter had already died by that time, and certainly doesn't have to be written later than 70AD (it doesn't even contain anything to do with the prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem). We do not know exactly when it's written, but it's pretty clear to anyone that it was written by the apostle John, making it an eyewitness account and therefore a trustworthy source.

(November 17, 2013 at 1:42 pm)xpastor Wrote: I meant to get back to this post, but some minor surgery intervened.

I hope all is well.

Quote:If we accepted your argument, it would prove a hell of a lot more than you wanted it to. If there was a "culture of death" and no one feared death, why would anyone give a damn about a resurrection and a promise of everlasting life?

As many of your peers have pointed out ever lasting life in of itself or in a context not sought after by the one seeking it is a kin to a prision sentence, one that lasts forever. What makes or should make everlasting life appealing to the 1st century man as well as modern man is the fact we get to spend it with God. This fact would entice the believer to the point of a general willingness to give up his/her life for the sake of their faith. Which was done many times over from that time till this. If life or the preservation of life itself was the comodity, then there would be far fewer martyrs for the Church.

Drich Wrote:You claim to be a pastor, but you do not seem to know of all of the things that happened between the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. There were some very tall hurrdles that were cleared inorder for Christianity to become a religion.

Quote:I do not claim to be a pastor. I most assuredly was a pastor, but I quit almost 30 years ago.

Maybe you don't understand the word claim or how it is being used here in this context. It is not to envoke an emotional response, but to highlight defination 3a from merrium webster's dictionary: " to assert in the face of possible contradiction"

You said you were a preacher I provided a statement that questions that because what you said does not seem to take into account the scripture I refernced. I was looking for a scriptural rebuttal.

Quote:Drich, it's quite amusing. I was a pastor in a church which upheld biblical inerrancy.

I do not say the bible is flawless. i simply pointed out your misunderstanding of the word 'generation' and how it was used in that passage.

Quote: I once put myself through all the mental contortions you engage in, so I know exactly what you are going to say on any point that calls in question the accuracy of the bible.

There is no 'mental contortion' here. I simply looked up the orginal greek word used in the passage. It has various meaning. I chose the one consistant with the context of the passage in which it was found.

The bible was not written in english, so how foolish is it to only look at the english and take it only at face value?

Quote:I remember going through this argument even before I was a pastor. I thought that the translation I used here might be some liberal attempt to devalue scripture. Sound familiar? Yes, it is true that the Greek genea occasionally means all those born of a common ancestor. However, the most common meaning is that used in the Good News Translation: all the people living at the same time. You obviously did not read the authority you cite because in fact it assigns the third meaning (the whole multitude of men living at the same time) to that very verse, Matthew 24:34.

Actually I did. I simply do not agree because the defination does not fit the context.

Quote:Long ago like you I clutched at the straw that it should mean race, the world will not end as long as the Jewish race exists, and I read exegetes blathering on about how remarkable it was that the Jewish people had survived. It doesn't work for two reasons. 1. The context calls for a clear time reference These things will happen before this generation dies. Nothing clear about when a nation will die.

And a clear time reference is given in that the son of man will return before the Jewish people all die out.

So why doesn't your understanding work? Because that generation died and Christ did not return. However within the defination of Genea the word can also mean a whole people. Now place that into historical context and the passage still reads true. Which means that any commentary that say the genea means a 'generation' as we understand the word is in error because History does not support this understanding or defination.

Quote: 2. There is nothing remarkable about the survival of the Jewish people. There are lots of nations still in existence which are just as old: The Greeks are still a people and speak what is recognizably the same language as they used in the time of Homer. The Chinese have lasted even longer.

What people have survived without a country for almost 2000 years?

Quote: Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom of God will come before some of those standing here have died.

The Kingdom came in acts 2 with the our pouring of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:He also tells the disciples, "I assure you that you will not finish your work in all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

Read the whole chapter. It says nothing about a second comming, Christ at that point in His ministry (Just after anointing the 12 apstoles.)Christ Is not speaking of a second comming He is speaking about the hard times a head as a direct follower/Apstole of Christ.

xpastor Wrote:What on earth are you trying to say? Are you related to that little old lady? The one who supposedly told the pastor he shouldn't use the modern translation because "if the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." The Good News Bible is a translation from the Hebrew and the Greek, not a modern paraphrase. You are more likely to find slanted paraphrases in fundamentalist-friendly versions like The Living Bible (aka The Way) or the "translations" of the New International Version. Are you unaware that the King James version is based on a very poor Greek text of the New Testament? Even the most rigid fundamentalists would tell you that.

I am not trying to sell one bible over another. I am saying that whether you use a KJV or whatever translation that tickles your fancy, bottom line is your not reading the orginal language in which the bible was written. To take it only at face value is a mistake.

Quote:The Jews (per the crusification of Christ) had the power of life and death in their hands.

Wait a minute Drippy. Your books claim that the "jews" weren't permitted to wipe their own asses without getting Pilate's permission. Make up your mind.

(November 18, 2013 at 11:55 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The Jews (per the crusification of Christ) had the power of life and death in their hands.

Wait a minute Drippy. Your books claim that the "jews" weren't permitted to wipe their own asses without getting Pilate's permission. Make up your mind.

Pilate, was on thin ice with rome for not keeping the jews under tighter control (hence the hand washing cermony when Pilate turn over Christ to be crusified.) He simply authorized the death of Christ by putting responsiablity back on to the blood lust being generated by the crowd of Jews. In an effort to keep the peace. The Sanhedrin knew how to manipulate the roman officals to get what they wanted from them in so far as having them kill 'one man.'

Quote:Pilate, was on thin ice with rome for not keeping the jews under tighter control

WHATTHEFUCKAREYOUTALKINGABOUT?

Seriously. Do you know anything about history at all that isn't ripped the pages of your stupid ass bible?

You've said some dumb shit in your time but now you are really off the deep end.

(November 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm)xpastor Wrote: Many would answer that it was borrowed from the Osiris myth.

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

So my answer is cognitive dissonance.

When people believe something intensely, and it fails to happen, they can't live with that. They have to invent a story to prove that it really did happen in an unexpected way.

We have seen this in the recent history of apocalyptic prophecy. William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and it obviously did not happen. The result was the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which "arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming." (Wikipedia) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it satisfied them. Likewise, the first Jehovah's witnesses predicted that Jesus would return in 1914. When no one spotted him, they said he had returned "invisibly."

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the Son of Man to come and usher in the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime.

Of course he died without seeing any such event. I suppose his followers said things like, "I just can't believe he's gone." Denial is the start of the grief process. Given Jesus' very real abilities as a preacher and the credulous nature of the era, they never moved on to the later stages of grief. Someone came up with the idea that he must have risen from the dead, and then others started to fill in the details, that so-and-so had seen him post-crucifixion, that there were angels there, that he showed his wounds, that he had dinner with his associates, that he ascended into heaven.

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith. To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

The Egyptian myths do have lots of similar motifs and they really are not far from Mesopotamia. Judgment day, purity motifs, ascension motif. Horus the savior god.

(November 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm)xpastor Wrote: Many would answer that it was borrowed from the Osiris myth.

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

So my answer is cognitive dissonance.

When people believe something intensely, and it fails to happen, they can't live with that. They have to invent a story to prove that it really did happen in an unexpected way.

We have seen this in the recent history of apocalyptic prophecy. William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and it obviously did not happen. The result was the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which "arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming." (Wikipedia) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it satisfied them. Likewise, the first Jehovah's witnesses predicted that Jesus would return in 1914. When no one spotted him, they said he had returned "invisibly."

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the Son of Man to come and usher in the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime.

Of course he died without seeing any such event. I suppose his followers said things like, "I just can't believe he's gone." Denial is the start of the grief process. Given Jesus' very real abilities as a preacher and the credulous nature of the era, they never moved on to the later stages of grief. Someone came up with the idea that he must have risen from the dead, and then others started to fill in the details, that so-and-so had seen him post-crucifixion, that there were angels there, that he showed his wounds, that he had dinner with his associates, that he ascended into heaven.

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith. To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

The Egyptian myths do have lots of similar motifs and they really are not far from Mesopotamia. Judgment day, purity motifs, ascension motif. Horus the savior god.

actually they dont.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html