discipulus im still waiting....

You know... there are... allegedly, "contemporary" accounts of Jesus besides what's in the bible...
Remember all those gospels that didn't make the final cut?.. how many were there? What did they say?
Why didn't they make the cut?

disciplus, you're defending the bible, as if it holds nothing more and nothing less than correct accounts of what happened to those people...
Has it occurred to you that it may not be so?

(February 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yes they contradict each other. That's what I meant about the accounts not matching up. It's not just telling the same story from different perspectives. It's telling stories with important details being different from each other.

Accounts may not match up. That does not mean they contradict each other. A contradiction would be:

Matthew saying Jesus was crucified by Himself and Luke saying Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

That would be a contradiction.

Matthew could say Jesus was crucified with two other thieves and Luke could say that Jesus was crucified.

That is not a contradiction. Luke not mentioning the two thieves is him not mentioning the two thieves. That is it.

Of course I used those as examples.

So they were just shite at documenting then?

Documenting the most earth shattering, history defining, humanity changing moment in earth's existence?

They leave out a few things do they? Cut some corners? Get a bit fuzzy with the details?

Bloody hell.

(February 24, 2014 at 7:28 pm)truthBtold Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm)discipulus Wrote: Matthew did not say zombies got up and started walking around eating people.

He said :

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

These people would have looked like ordinary people. They were not ghosts or floating white sheets with holes cut out for eyes or flesh eating zombies.

This zombie apocalypse that you seem to be envisioning would probably have been recorded by historians but alas, it never happened.

But I want to point out something to all of you that I find ironic.

I find it ironic that you all sit up here and laugh at the mention of the supernatural and poke fun of it and ridicule Christians for speaking of the supernatural, and yet you want to be incredulous because I say that if indeed some Romans had spoken out about seeing people resurrected to life that they were more than likely dismissed as superstitious fools!!!!

I just find that ironic. Time and time and time again I am branded a fool and a superstitious idiot by atheists for mentioning the supernatural, and yet atheists act like I have said something completely off the wall when I posit that those who claimed to have seen resurrected people would have more than likely been disregarded!

You all cannot have it both ways. hock:

---

I am serious.

Yeah ok u where there to see these dead people looking like normal people.. assuming makes an ass out of u.

As far as I am aware, in every occurance of someone being resurrected in scripture, there is no mention of their physical appearance being so altered as to make them unrecognizable. In other words, every time in scripture someone has been resurrected, they retain their physical appearance they possessed before they died and look like a normal person.

So I assume this based on the uniform testimony of scripture. Once again this is something taught in hermeneutics.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm)discipulus Wrote: Accounts may not match up. That does not mean they contradict each other. A contradiction would be:

Matthew saying Jesus was crucified by Himself and Luke saying Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

That would be a contradiction.

Matthew could say Jesus was crucified with two other thieves and Luke could say that Jesus was crucified.

That is not a contradiction. Luke not mentioning the two thieves is him not mentioning the two thieves. That is it.

Of course I used those as examples.

So they were just shite at documenting then?

Documenting the most earth shattering, history defining, humanity changing moment in earth's existence?

They leave out a few things do they? Cut some corners? Get a bit fuzzy with the details?

Bloody hell.

If that is how you see it. In my sight their divergence in details lends credibility to their accounts. It would be mighty suspicious if all four men recorded every single event exactly the same. I am sure some here would charge them with conspiring together if this had been the case!!!!

"It is a conspiracy, they copied one another!!!!" would be the charge then.....

Some people cannot be satisfied it seems.... hock:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: As far as I am aware, in every occurance of someone being resurrected in scripture, there is no mention of their physical appearance being so altered as to make them unrecognizable. In other words, every time in scripture someone has been resurrected, they retain their physical appearance they possessed before they died and look like a normal person.

So I assume this based on the uniform testimony of scripture. Once again this is something taught in hermeneutics.

I agree.... if you can do magic to bring someone back from the dead, then the least you could do was also restore the lifelike appearance of the body.
If resurrection requires 100 mana.... restoring the body to look alive should only require some 5, maybe 10 mana....

This isn't Aladdin...

(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: As far as I am aware, in every occurance of someone being resurrected in scripture, there is no mention of their physical appearance being so altered as to make them unrecognizable.

Jesus is recorded as being resurrected with the spear hole and nail holes still in him. Many of the people resurrected would thus have shown signs of death, if they were resurrected in the same way. So, no, you are wrong. They would have been recognizably dead.

U GOT ME GOING NOW.. The author of Matthew tries to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, so he searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies." Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true.

His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John riding one donkey) or (if you believe Matthew riding on two donkeys). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time in (matthew 21:7) literally says, "on them he sat." Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread (Zechariah 9:9) which reads... "riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass".. Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" (used in the septugaint/Vulgate and KJV bible does not indicate another animal, but is used in the sense of "even" which is used in many translations) for emphasis.

The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. It is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event.

(February 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You know... there are... allegedly, "contemporary" accounts of Jesus besides what's in the bible...
Remember all those gospels that didn't make the final cut?.. how many were there? What did they say?
Why didn't they make the cut?

disciplus, you're defending the bible, as if it holds nothing more and nothing less than correct accounts of what happened to those people...
Has it occurred to you that it may not be so?

Yes it has.

Sometimes I do ask myself if what I believe regarding the bible is in fact true.

This drives me to study and to study more. And to research, and to study more.

It drives me to consider with honesty, humility, and an open mind, views that are dissimilar to mine.

At the end of the day, it seems clear to me.....

The Bible is the anvil that has worn out many a hammer that has tried to strike it and destroy it.

(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:28 pm)truthBtold Wrote: Yeah ok u where there to see these dead people looking like normal people.. assuming makes an ass out of u.

As far as I am aware, in every occurance of someone being resurrected in scripture, there is no mention of their physical appearance being so altered as to make them unrecognizable. In other words, every time in scripture someone has been resurrected, they retain their physical appearance they possessed before they died and look like a normal person.

So I assume this based on the uniform testimony of scripture. Once again this is something taught in hermeneutics.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: So they were just shite at documenting then?

Documenting the most earth shattering, history defining, humanity changing moment in earth's existence?

They leave out a few things do they? Cut some corners? Get a bit fuzzy with the details?

Bloody hell.

If that is how you see it. In my sight their divergence in details lends credibility to their accounts. It would be mighty suspicious if all four men recorded every single event exactly the same. I am sure some here would charge them with conspiring together if this had been the case!!!!

"It is a conspiracy, they copied one another!!!!" would be the charge then.....

Some people cannot be satisfied it seems.... hock:

Those people are often the most pioneering.

And some will accept anything.

I think we're chasing down a red herring. The issue isn't that George A Romero-style zombies lurched around; it's that people known to be dead came back to life and interacted with friends and relatives. Why did nobody outside the story write this down? How did that news not make it back to Rome?